Google finds itself at the center of controversy during its second antitrust trial, with allegations that the tech giant engaged in practices designed to hide sensitive internal communications.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Google employees used tactics such as auto-deleting chats and marking emails as “privileged and confidential” to avoid preserving potentially damaging evidence, and these actions have sparked concerns about Google's compliance with legal obligations, as Breitbart reports.

Evidence suggests Google employees were instructed to preserve communications but frequently avoided documentation, which could lead to serious legal consequences.

The ongoing trial, taking place in Virginia, reveals details of how Google executives allegedly skirted documentation requirements. The DOJ accuses the company of not only disregarding clear instructions to retain communications but also intentionally concealing discussions that could have significant implications in court. The practice, if determined to be deliberate, may result in an adverse inference ruling against Google, a serious penalty where the court could assume the company had something to hide.

DOJ Points to Google’s Communication Practices

One of the primary issues raised by the DOJ involves Google’s use of auto-deleting chats, a feature executives and employees reportedly used to discuss sensitive topics. Chris LaSala, a former Google executive in the sell-side ad department, admitted to instructing employees to use chat threads with history turned off. This allowed for conversations to occur without any lasting record, directly contradicting the company’s legal obligations to preserve such communications.

LaSala’s testimony also revealed that he made errors in following the company’s litigation hold, a directive that requires employees to maintain communications relevant to ongoing legal matters. Although he insisted that any mistakes were unintentional, the frequency with which Google employees marked emails as “privileged and confidential” raised questions about the intent behind these actions.

Executives Testify on Labeling Communications

In addition to LaSala, other former executives, including Brad Bender and Rahul Srinivasan, were questioned about their communication practices. Both were asked to explain their use of the “privileged and confidential” label on internal emails. Bender described chat conversations as informal and spontaneous, likening them to casual hallway discussions. However, this does not align with the DOJ's concerns that Google may have been systematically limiting its documentation of sensitive business matters.

The DOJ further highlighted Google’s internal “Communicate with Care” legal training program. This initiative was designed to educate employees on the importance of being cautious about what they put in writing, as their communications could potentially be used against the company in court. Documents presented during the trial indicated that while many business decisions were well-documented, certain critical topics were often left off the record, especially those involving legal or regulatory risks.

Adverse Inference Ruling a Potential Outcome

The possibility of an adverse inference ruling looms large in this trial. The DOJ has made it clear that if the court finds Google’s actions to be intentional, the judge could infer that the company deliberately destroyed or withheld evidence. This type of ruling would severely damage Google's defense and could set a dangerous precedent for how companies handle internal communications in future legal battles.

Google, however, maintains that it has fulfilled its legal obligations. Company spokesperson Peter Schottenfels stated that Google has been diligent in producing millions of documents, including chat messages and emails, in response to litigation. He stressed that the company takes document preservation seriously and that many of the communications at issue were not protected by legal privilege.

Auto-Deletion of Chats Raises Red Flags

Despite Google's assertions, the auto-deleting chat feature remains a significant point of contention. The DOJ argues that this feature was a tool used to limit the creation of a lasting record, particularly for discussions that could later prove damaging in court. The evidence suggests that even after Google was placed on a litigation hold, certain executives continued to use this feature to avoid having their conversations preserved.

The testimony of key executives, including LaSala, has only added to the controversy. While LaSala admitted to advising employees to engage in off-the-record chats, he also attempted to downplay the significance of these actions by characterizing them as minor missteps. However, the pattern of behavior seen in multiple executives has raised doubts about whether these practices were isolated incidents or part of a broader strategy to avoid documentation.

Legal Training Emphasized, but Was It Enough?

Google’s “Communicate with Care” program, which was designed to teach employees how to handle sensitive communications, has come under scrutiny. While the company has portrayed this initiative as an effort to ensure responsible communication, the DOJ has suggested that it may have also encouraged employees to limit the amount of documentation on certain topics. This has fueled speculation that the company’s legal strategy may have been to create as little written evidence as possible regarding key business decisions.

The trial also featured a review of internal documents showing that while some business discussions were well-documented, sensitive issues were often handled with more discretion. For instance, some topics that could lead to legal or regulatory scrutiny were reportedly discussed verbally or in chat threads without any written record.

Google's First Antitrust Trial Raises Concerns

This is not the first time that Google’s document preservation practices have come under fire. In its first antitrust trial concerning its search business, the judge warned about the dangers of relying on employees to preserve relevant evidence. However, at that time, the court did not issue an adverse inference ruling, which would have penalized Google for failing to retain necessary documentation.

As the second antitrust trial progresses, the stakes remain high for Google. The DOJ's claims regarding Google’s communication practices could have significant implications, not only for this case but also for the company’s future legal battles. If the court determines that Google intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence, it could face severe penalties.

Conclusion: High Stakes for Google in Ongoing Trial

The ongoing antitrust trial against Google has brought the company’s internal communication practices into sharp focus.

Allegations of auto-deleting chats and misuse of “privileged and confidential” labels suggest that Google may have attempted to avoid documentation that could harm its case.

The DOJ’s claims, combined with testimony from key executives, raise serious questions about the company’s compliance with its legal obligations.

As the trial continues, the potential for an adverse inference ruling could have far-reaching consequences for Google.