US v. Google: Judge Amit Mehta has repeatedly accepted Google's requests to redact documents and hold private testimony, alarming press advocates and reporters
U.S. v. Google was supposed to be the “antitrust trial of the century”—the highest-profile, and potentially the most consequential … X: @econliberties , @khushitavasant , @scottnover , and @lutherlowe See also Mediagazer X: @econliberties : “The case is ostensibly about...illuminating potentially untoward practices of a biz nearly every American depends upon, but the public has consistently been shut out.” “Google Search has long been called a ‘black box.’” Fittingly, so is its trial." https://slate.com/... @khushitavasant : I wish the judiciary could understand the role of reporters covering trials. A timely, much-needed piece by @ScottNover on public access hurdles in the high-profile @Google #antitrust trial. “Google's on Trial. No Looking.” https://slate.com/... @COAttnyGeneral @JusticeATR Scott Nover / @scottnover : U.S. v Google was billed as the “antitrust trial of the century.” But the case has been shrouded in secrecy—full of redacted documents and closed-door testimony—leaving reporters, and the public, largely in the dark. My latest column for @Slate: https://slate.com/... Luther Lowe / @lutherlowe : The Google trial is happening partially in secret. That's unacceptable. https://slate.com/... See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
The search antitrust case was framed as a major test of Google’s market conduct, while Google had previously characterized the DOJ’s claims as fundamentally flawed. This report shifts attention from the merits to the public’s ability to scrutinize how those claims are tested in court.
The transparency dispute sits alongside procedural fights around Google’s broader antitrust exposure, including the court’s refusal to disqualify DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter in a separate ad-tech case. The search case later reached closely watched closing arguments, underscoring why access to its evidentiary record matters.
First-order effects
- Redactions and sealed testimony limit what reporters, press advocates, and the public can independently assess about the evidence aired in the Google search trial.
- Google gains greater protection for material it considers confidential, while Judge Mehta’s courtroom becomes a narrower channel for public scrutiny of the government’s case and Google’s defense.
Second-order effects
- Less-visible testimony makes it harder for outside observers to distinguish allegations from evidence, potentially concentrating interpretation of the case in court filings and post-hearing rulings.
- The handling may encourage other large technology defendants to seek comparable confidentiality protections in antitrust matters where commercial information is central to the record.
Third-order effects
- If high-profile platform cases are increasingly litigated through sealed records, antitrust enforcement can become less publicly legible even when its outcomes have broad market consequences.
- Courts may face a recurring balance between protecting competitively sensitive information and preserving meaningful public access to trials involving dominant digital platforms.
The trend: Tech antitrust is becoming a parallel contest over transparency, as scrutiny of platform power depends not only on legal outcomes but on access to the evidence behind them.