I'm not saying that they are guilty. But the judge shouldn't be completely oblivious of Alphabet's past history and its role as a "key market player" and just

I'm not saying that they are guilty. But the judge shouldn't be completely oblivious of Alphabet's past history and its role as a "key market player" and just taking the claims at face value. The argumentation doesn't sound very balanced tbh. More like: that's way above my league and I don't want to be the one jeopardizing national security, so I have to trust you on that. In a sense, this is an admission that Alphabet is way too "big" already to be treated as an "ordinary company" which makes a due process a more complicated matter, euphemistically speaking. And I get that but as the substack article points out: atm right from the start it plays out way too far on Alphabet's terms. That's the way I read it, I might be wrong.