And indeed, there will still be a trial. It's just that it will be a trial by judge instead of by jury.
This is the story of the prosecution playing hardball with the defendant's rights, and succeeding. Good on them, they basically got the American taxpayers some money out of Google for free.
There is a lot at stake in here. Single judge has all the power now. It sets baseline for future cases.
Jury would have also included more about the emotional aspect (ethics and morals), while judge views only the law. I am not sure, if that is a good thing here, and Google knows that. They can pay for lawyers.
Non-trained misunderstandings of the law like this are exactly what Google is trying to avoid by keeping a case like this out of the hands of the jury.
I don't love Google, but putting that aside for the sake of argument-
They seem to be following the process backed by the 7th amendment which was validated by a judge. Google paid the damages that the government claimed they owed. I agree that the prosecution made a mistake if they miscalculated. If the government didn't miscalculate the damages then what more should Google have paid?
Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case.
> Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case.
It works in two directions. It is now less likely that ethics or morals have much weight for the final decision. I would argue that these were not in the side of Google. They can pay for lawyers who know the law, which is more important when there is only single judge.
The title makes this sound sinister, but Google is avoiding a jury trial by accepting the damages as claimed. Google was just recently handed a devastating loss after a jury trial in Epic v Google, a loss they don't want to repeat. The government asked for $2.3 million and Google agreed to pay it, obviating the need for a trial of the facts by a jury. This seems to be an entirely normal process.
Also note that this is US v. Google (2023), the one about the advertising market, not the 2020 suit about search.
it looks like all similar/recent trials were already bench trials[1]. That is not to express that such trials should or should not be tried by jury.
"Unlike all the other recent cases federal and state governments have brought against Big Tech, the DOJ’s latest complaint includes a demand for a jury trial. This jury demand is extremely unusual—government civil antitrust claims are almost always tried to a judge—and it raises a host of strategic challenges for the parties as well as broader policy issues about the role of juries in complex antitrust matters."
It seems daft & irresponsible to build a case whose damage claims amount to nothing more than a penny found on the ground to Google. It's counterproductive to create a sense that there's an active regulatory body that won't seek significant sums for anti-trust activities.
Which is, frankly, probably good for the government. This was a weird suit from the beginning, targeting Google where they have the most at stake but also where they have the strongest case. The amount of damages the prosecution asked for and got is proof that no one thought at this stage that this case was going anywhere.
The search monopoly suit is the far more interesting one to me.
21 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 48.3 ms ] threadYou still did wrong even if you paid for the damages.
That should not change the overall process.
This is the story of the prosecution playing hardball with the defendant's rights, and succeeding. Good on them, they basically got the American taxpayers some money out of Google for free.
Jury would have also included more about the emotional aspect (ethics and morals), while judge views only the law. I am not sure, if that is a good thing here, and Google knows that. They can pay for lawyers.
They seem to be following the process backed by the 7th amendment which was validated by a judge. Google paid the damages that the government claimed they owed. I agree that the prosecution made a mistake if they miscalculated. If the government didn't miscalculate the damages then what more should Google have paid?
Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case.
It works in two directions. It is now less likely that ethics or morals have much weight for the final decision. I would argue that these were not in the side of Google. They can pay for lawyers who know the law, which is more important when there is only single judge.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40420968
Also note that this is US v. Google (2023), the one about the advertising market, not the 2020 suit about search.
"Unlike all the other recent cases federal and state governments have brought against Big Tech, the DOJ’s latest complaint includes a demand for a jury trial. This jury demand is extremely unusual—government civil antitrust claims are almost always tried to a judge—and it raises a host of strategic challenges for the parties as well as broader policy issues about the role of juries in complex antitrust matters."
[1] https://www.promarket.org/2023/04/26/understanding-the-dojs-... - looks to be Chicago School affiliated but pretty neutral.
The search monopoly suit is the far more interesting one to me.