The allegation in the article is not that google destroyed internal chats, but rather had instructed staff to turn off the chat saving feature before having suc

The allegation in the article is not that google destroyed internal chats, but rather had instructed staff to turn off the chat saving feature before having such chats. Just as inculpatory, but not the same thing: "Google was accused of enacting a policy instructing employees to turn chat history off by default when discussing sensitive topics, including Google's revenue-sharing and mobile application distribution agreements. These agreements, the DOJ and state attorneys general argued, work to maintain Google's monopoly over search." >Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued. the article doesn't seem to cover this subhead, but I'm guessing this is a reference not to failing to keep records of their anti-competitive practices, but to something along the lines of "google only seems like a monopoly because they're such a good competitor they wind up with all the customers"