11 ms·

The career officials at the FTC recommended antitrust action against Google back in 2012, but the political appointees shut them down. >When the Federal Trade

The career officials at the FTC recommended antitrust action against Google back in 2012, but the political appointees shut them down. >When the Federal Trade Commission neared a momentous decision on whether to charge Google with violating antitrust laws in January 2013, the White House was watching closely. New emails uncovered by the Campaign for Accountability, a public interest watchdog organization, show that a White House advisor met with top Google lobbyist Johanna Shelton and top Google antitrust counsel Matthew Bye twice in the weeks before the FTC announcement. And minutes prior to the final decision – in which FTC commissioners took the unusual step of overriding their staff’s recommendation to sue, and voted to settle the case instead – the White House official even sought Google’s talking points in the matter. https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-cozied-up-to-google-before-antitrust-lawsuit-was-shelved/ https://theintercept.com/2016/08/18/white-house-official-coz...

fyoving 7y ago
That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not. Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.
- monocasa 7y ago
  Google was also very positively connected to the Obama administration. It was some googlers that stepped in and turned around healthcare.gov for instance. I've heard a lot of rumors that they gave a lot of data access to the campaigns too.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Not only is the amount of revolving door between Google and the Obama administration well documented, but Eric Schmidt was literally part of Hillary's campaign staff and personally funded a company to provide her campaign's development and infrastructure. Suffice to say, they have a lot less allies in DC this year, and even Democrats are starting to look negatively on them now.
    - ajxs 7y ago
      Although this is a minor digression, I always felt that it was very interesting to contrast the overwhelming amount of airtime on the legacy media devoted to throwing fuel on the fire of "Russian interference in the 2016 election" with the scant concern for Alphabet's working relationship with the Clinton Campaign. I know I'm not the only person concerned with the disproportionate influence that companies like Google, Twitter, etc have on modern political discourse. Isn't it frightening that the assistance of such companies can be bought with the promise of regulatory lenience? Even if someone didn't agree with the previous statement, isn't it still of significant concern that the companies controlling the flow of information are participants in partisan politics?
  - User23 7y ago
    Google engineers also built Obama's campaign software. The relationship was far tighter than most people realize.
    - cycrutchfield 7y ago
      They built his campaign software while working for Google? Are you sure about that?
      - mjevans 7y ago
        I think you're jumping to a conclusion with that phrasing. It's very likely they happened to also volunteer (or maybe be hired by) the campaign WHILE also happening to be employed by Google.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And Google would allow their employees to build IP for a particular political campaign? That is, they would waive their rights to the IP produced by their employees for the specific benefit of a particular candidate? That seems unlikely.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Eric Schmidt literally went out of his way to organize the Clinton IT infrastructure on ridiculously good terms. https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/ https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-... The idea that he utilized Google resources to do the same for Obama while he had more direct influence over Google isn't a crazy idea.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And he did so in his capacity as a private citizen, not by exercising his influence at Google. By the way, we are quite far afield from the initial claim that Google employees wrote software for a particular political campaign.
- GeekyBear 7y ago
  It's not so much an interpretation of what happened as it is a leak of what happened. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for anticompetitive practices, according to several people who saw the report but would speak about it only under the condition of anonymity. At least one other staff report, they said, recommended not to pursue a lawsuit. In early 2013, the agency unanimously voted not to bring charges after an investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to-court-staff-report-urged-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to... Google has already lost several antitrust actions in the EU. It's not difficult to imagine that the investigation by FTC career officials found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to recommend taking action.
  - fyoving 7y ago
    The EU has different rules (and extra motivation to go after US companies) they also don't need to win in court, their enforcement action in unilateral.
DannyBee 7y ago
FWIW: It sounds nefarious, but the DOJ/FTC/etc quite often meet with all parties prior to taking antitrust action. That's because (at least in the number of times i've been invited to meetings with these sorts of regulators) the relevant folks are not idiots, and in fact are trying to understand all sides of the issue before deciding what they should do. This is actually what you want them to do, as there are rarely, if ever, truly disinterested parties in these sorts of things. As an aside, i'm pretty sure Matthew was not the top antitrust counsel at Google at the time. I believe it was Nikhil Shanbhag. Job titles on linkedin seem to confirm my recollection.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I’ll note for the audience that such meetings are common for many types of prosecutions, even for relatively low level criminal ones. If you’ve every watched a TV show about a murder investigation, you know the police will talk to you and get your statement before they arrest you. The SEC will also send a “we’re thinking of suing you” letter (Wells notice), where you can respond with a PowerPoint presentation of “why you shouldn’t sue me.” When you’ve got complex antitrust and securities issues, that up-front discussion becomes even more important.
  - averros 7y ago
    TV shows are notoriously bad sources of information about the real world. In the real world if the police has anything solid which they believe points at you as the perp, they will arrest you first (possibly after watching you for a while). Extracting information from you is so much easier when you are intimidated and fearful - as anyone would be after marinating for a few days in a cell. Talking to the police before you get arrested is just plain stupid. Let the lawyer do the talking. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNc3Qic-Ks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNc3Qic-Ks
    - eitland 7y ago
      rayiner is a notoriously good source of information. He is also a laywer, see his profile: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rayiner https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rayiner
kartikeye 7y ago
What is needed are RICO statues not antitrust law. They are clearly engaged in racketeering and cartelization. They follow people around the web and log all user activity to 1e100.net. How can you compete when they illegally eavesdrop on your users ? Google is the Gambino family of tech, we also have Luchesi and Genovese in the so called FAANG group. They even control the Internet standard groups. Time for inept to be restored to the people.
tyingq 7y ago
Here's the staffer report from that event: http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report
m0zg 7y ago
The mental gymnastics below in the thread where people try to explain why not investigating Google in 2012 was OK and investigating it now is not OK are quite amazing. Though to be fair, in 2012 Google exerted its monopolistic power far less than it does now. For the life of me I can't understand why it's good that less than a dozen unelected and non-removable people in this country (Schmidt/Page, Zuck, and the owners of 99% of "independent" media) have the power to decide who wins elections, and what people think about issues.

fyoving 7y ago

That's one interpretation by interested parties another would be that enforcement lawyers are always aggressive and those who make the decision in the end would have to weigh the odds of winning in court and unanimously they decides not. Regardless, the FTC would have had a much better chance than the DOJ as they have specific broad powers more suitable to this case.

monocasa 7y ago
Google was also very positively connected to the Obama administration. It was some googlers that stepped in and turned around healthcare.gov for instance. I've heard a lot of rumors that they gave a lot of data access to the campaigns too.
- fyoving 7y ago
  I don't know about data accesse rumors but the fact that a bunch of Googlers did government work during the Obama years is well documented, that said the FTC is an independent agency with commissioners from both parties and they unanimously voted against going to court.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Not only is the amount of revolving door between Google and the Obama administration well documented, but Eric Schmidt was literally part of Hillary's campaign staff and personally funded a company to provide her campaign's development and infrastructure. Suffice to say, they have a lot less allies in DC this year, and even Democrats are starting to look negatively on them now.
  - ajxs 7y ago
    Although this is a minor digression, I always felt that it was very interesting to contrast the overwhelming amount of airtime on the legacy media devoted to throwing fuel on the fire of "Russian interference in the 2016 election" with the scant concern for Alphabet's working relationship with the Clinton Campaign. I know I'm not the only person concerned with the disproportionate influence that companies like Google, Twitter, etc have on modern political discourse. Isn't it frightening that the assistance of such companies can be bought with the promise of regulatory lenience? Even if someone didn't agree with the previous statement, isn't it still of significant concern that the companies controlling the flow of information are participants in partisan politics?
- User23 7y ago
  Google engineers also built Obama's campaign software. The relationship was far tighter than most people realize.
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    They built his campaign software while working for Google? Are you sure about that?
    - mjevans 7y ago
      I think you're jumping to a conclusion with that phrasing. It's very likely they happened to also volunteer (or maybe be hired by) the campaign WHILE also happening to be employed by Google.
      - cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And Google would allow their employees to build IP for a particular political campaign? That is, they would waive their rights to the IP produced by their employees for the specific benefit of a particular candidate? That seems unlikely.
        monocasa 7y ago
        Eric Schmidt literally went out of his way to organize the Clinton IT infrastructure on ridiculously good terms. https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/ https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-... The idea that he utilized Google resources to do the same for Obama while he had more direct influence over Google isn't a crazy idea.
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        And he did so in his capacity as a private citizen, not by exercising his influence at Google. By the way, we are quite far afield from the initial claim that Google employees wrote software for a particular political campaign.
GeekyBear 7y ago
It's not so much an interpretation of what happened as it is a leak of what happened. >The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday faced renewed questions about its handling of its antitrust investigation into Google, after documents revealed that an internal report had recommended stronger action. The 2012 report, from the agency’s bureau of competition, said that the agency should sue the Internet search company for anticompetitive practices, according to several people who saw the report but would speak about it only under the condition of anonymity. At least one other staff report, they said, recommended not to pursue a lawsuit. In early 2013, the agency unanimously voted not to bring charges after an investigation. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to-court-staff-report-urged-ftc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/take-google-to... Google has already lost several antitrust actions in the EU. It's not difficult to imagine that the investigation by FTC career officials found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to recommend taking action.
- fyoving 7y ago
  The EU has different rules (and extra motivation to go after US companies) they also don't need to win in court, their enforcement action in unilateral.

DannyBee 7y ago

FWIW: It sounds nefarious, but the DOJ/FTC/etc quite often meet with all parties prior to taking antitrust action. That's because (at least in the number of times i've been invited to meetings with these sorts of regulators) the relevant folks are not idiots, and in fact are trying to understand all sides of the issue before deciding what they should do. This is actually what you want them to do, as there are rarely, if ever, truly disinterested parties in these sorts of things. As an aside, i'm pretty sure Matthew was not the top antitrust counsel at Google at the time. I believe it was Nikhil Shanbhag. Job titles on linkedin seem to confirm my recollection.

rayiner 7y ago
I’ll note for the audience that such meetings are common for many types of prosecutions, even for relatively low level criminal ones. If you’ve every watched a TV show about a murder investigation, you know the police will talk to you and get your statement before they arrest you. The SEC will also send a “we’re thinking of suing you” letter (Wells notice), where you can respond with a PowerPoint presentation of “why you shouldn’t sue me.” When you’ve got complex antitrust and securities issues, that up-front discussion becomes even more important.
- averros 7y ago
  TV shows are notoriously bad sources of information about the real world. In the real world if the police has anything solid which they believe points at you as the perp, they will arrest you first (possibly after watching you for a while). Extracting information from you is so much easier when you are intimidated and fearful - as anyone would be after marinating for a few days in a cell. Talking to the police before you get arrested is just plain stupid. Let the lawyer do the talking. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNc3Qic-Ks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRNc3Qic-Ks
  - eitland 7y ago
    rayiner is a notoriously good source of information. He is also a laywer, see his profile: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rayiner https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rayiner

kartikeye 7y ago

What is needed are RICO statues not antitrust law. They are clearly engaged in racketeering and cartelization. They follow people around the web and log all user activity to 1e100.net. How can you compete when they illegally eavesdrop on your users ? Google is the Gambino family of tech, we also have Luchesi and Genovese in the so called FAANG group. They even control the Internet standard groups. Time for inept to be restored to the people.

tyingq 7y ago

Here's the staffer report from that event: http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report

m0zg 7y ago

The mental gymnastics below in the thread where people try to explain why not investigating Google in 2012 was OK and investigating it now is not OK are quite amazing. Though to be fair, in 2012 Google exerted its monopolistic power far less than it does now. For the life of me I can't understand why it's good that less than a dozen unelected and non-removable people in this country (Schmidt/Page, Zuck, and the owners of 99% of "independent" media) have the power to decide who wins elections, and what people think about issues.