In the ongoing antitrust trial of U.S. et al. v. Google, the tech giant has been pushing for privacy and limited transparency. Google argued in a court filing that disclosing commercially sensitive information in open court could harm its competitive standing irreversibly. The company filed numerous motions and responses in the case, with the majority of them sealed. As the trial progresses into its third week, it is becoming one of the most secretive antitrust trials in recent history. Other companies involved, such as Apple and Microsoft, have also sought to limit public access to the proceedings, with Apple even fighting against subpoenas to prevent its executives from testifying.
Google’s request for privacy and limited transparency in the antitrust trial is aimed at avoiding the potential damage that disclosing sensitive information could cause to its competitive position. The company believes that once commercially sensitive information is made public, the harm cannot be undone. This position is part of a pattern of Google’s attempts to restrict transparency in the trial, as evidenced by the high number of sealed motions and responses filed. The trial has now gained attention for its secrecy, with other companies like Apple and Microsoft also seeking to limit public access to the proceedings. Apple went as far as describing the subpoenas as “unduly burdensome” in an effort to prevent its executives from providing testimony.
The antitrust trial of U.S. et al. v. Google has been marked by a push for secrecy and limited public access. As the trial progresses, it is becoming increasingly closed off to the public, with Google, Apple, and Microsoft all arguing for privacy and restricted transparency. Google’s concern lies in the potential irreversible harm to its competitive standing if commercially sensitive information is revealed in open court. The company has filed numerous sealed motions and responses, contributing to the secretive nature of the trial. Similarly, Apple has sought to quash subpoenas and avoid having its executives testify. This concerted effort to limit transparency has turned the trial into one of the most secretive antitrust cases in recent memory.