Conservative groups are criticizing Google’s secretive relationship with Apple. US District Judge Amit Mehta, who is overseeing the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s landmark case against Google, has ruled that exhibits can be unsealed daily. However, Google and Apple have the right to contest what is unsealed, resulting in very little information being made public. Nonprofit groups, including representatives from American Principles Project and the Center for Renewing America, have filed a motion in DC federal court to make all exhibits about Google’s relationship with Apple and Apple executive Eddy Cue’s testimony publicly available.
The attorney representing the third party groups claimed that Google and Apple have too much control over what information the public can access in this trial, despite Judge Mehta’s efforts to promote transparency. He criticized the companies for using their vast resources to prevent exhibits and transcripts from reaching the public. The filing by the nonprofit groups reflects the growing frustration among antitrust advocates who have been eagerly awaiting this case, which they believe could be the most significant since Standard Oil’s breakup. However, much of the case remains under seal, which is concerning to those who want to see the investigation conducted and the law upheld.
Google and Apple have not responded to requests for comment. Additionally, Amazon, which is facing an antitrust suit from the Federal Trade Commission, is also pushing for secrecy. The FTC has requested the unsealing of redacted documents in its filings unless Amazon moves to keep them confidential. The lack of transparency in these cases has raised concerns among critics, who argue that it is preventing people from fully understanding the impact these companies have on various aspects of society, including elections and everyday life.
Luther Lowe, Senior Vice President of Public Policy at Yelp, highlighted the irony of Google’s mission to organize and make information universally accessible while actively suppressing access to information about a trial that affects everyone. He described the current state of affairs as unprecedented in terms of opaqueness.
