Saturday, October 31, 2020, 17:50 GMT
District Judge Amit Mehta (Amit Mehta) released a short order on Friday, local time, asking Google to respond by mid-November to the Department of Justice ‘s antitrust litigation. Google has to clarify how to respond to the complaint, and information about the case will eventually begin to be revealed by all sides.
A litigation against Google was officially announced on October 20th, US local time, by the US Department of Justice, accusing the US$ 1 trillion technology corporation of unfairly exploiting its market position to obstruct rivals. This has, for decades, been the strength of US regulators against big technology firms. And the biggest intervention of law enforcement with power.
In search and search ads, the U.S. Department of Justice accused Google of taking unethical measures to protect its competitive position. Any corruption is refuted by Google.
Google Delegate John Schmidtlein decided at a state meeting on Friday to advise the District of Columbia District Court by 13 November whether the search and advertisement firm wants to respond on the grounds of a summary judgment. Oh, scenario.
Judge Mehta said that all parties should request a progress report on the security order before November 6, after several disagreements between the Justice Department and Google’s attorneys, which would secure the rating of Google clients who supply the Justice Department with evidence. Tripartisan. Around the same time, possible witnesses and facts that could be included in the trial before November 20 could first be reported by all parties.
On November 18, the next status meeting is set. Judge Mehta also exposed Google’s personal ties, including one of his cousins who worked for Google and a friend who acted as a Google executive. He didn’t know what role his cousin played on Google, Mehta said. Google declined to confirm the identity of the relatives of Judge Mehta and declined to clarify the existence of his work.
When confirming the judge, both sides in the case often challenge the family relationship of the judge. If Google or the Department of Justice would seek to get Judge Mehta to flee is uncertain. U.S. legislation mandates that “in any lawsuit in which justice can be fairly challenged,” judges must withdraw.
Google could be immune to the Ministry of Justice’s three particular arguments in the antitrust case, namely:
1) Google has monopoly power in three markets: general search service, search text advertising and search advertising. In this regard, Google may counterattack by promoting the expansion of the scope of these three markets, and said it faces a lot of competition.
2) Google has illegally maintained its control of the market by using a series of exclusive agreements to block rival search engines. Google may argue that consumers benefit from it.
3) Google harmed the interests of consumers and advertisers, and harmed competition and innovation. Google may argue that its products are good enough, and consumers can also choose to switch to other search engines.
If it wins the lawsuit, the US Department of Justice has not stated what remedy it would pursue to fix the actions of Google. However, in order to keep Google from attempting to sign exclusive deals with equipment suppliers, the corporation is likely to request a court order. Furthermore, the Department of Justice may pursue systemic remedies that may be similar to the separation of Google or the compulsory divestment of properties.