Apple, others seek to obscure sensitive data in Google antitrust suit

Apple and a number of major tech companies asked a federal judge overseeing the Google antitrust case to hide sensitive information from prying eyes — namely Google.

The companies asked Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to designate certain data used in the Justice Department case as "highly confidential," reports Reuters.

A protective order would disallow Google employees from viewing private business contracts and other sensitive information that might be divulged in the process of trying the lawsuit. Apple, for example, already disclosed terms of its relationship with Google and expects to be asked for additional information.

The government could request documents pertaining to deals with competing search engines, including internal discussions at Apple regarding negotiation tactics, the report said. Access to Apple's data could put the iPhone maker at a disadvantage when forging future deals with Google.

Other firms that assisted in the Justice Department's case, including Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Duck Duck Go, Microsoft, Oracle, Sonos and T-Mobile, separately asked Judge Mehta for similar protections in joint filing. Advertising firm GroupM specifically requested information be "disclosed only on an 'outside attorneys' eyes only' basis," according to the report.

Google for its part offered assurances that access to confidential information would be restricted to two attorneys working for an outside counsel. It also promised to report any disclosures.

The U.S. government is suing Google for allegedly abusing its outsized power in the internet search industry. A Google deal with Apple to maintain its standing as the default search engine in iOS is a centerpiece of the suit. Reports earlier this year suggest Google paid Apple some $9.5 billion in 2018 for the distinction.

11 Comments

macseeker 8 Years · 541 comments

About 4 years ago

I would have to agree with Apple since DuckDuckGo is involved.

seantheman 5 Years · 19 comments

Of course Apple and others want to obscure sensitive data between the agreement between Apple and Google, because who do you think negotiated the agreement between Google and Apple for the 9.5 billion. Does anyone here think that Google wanted to pay Apple 9.5 billion to be the default search on Apples platforms? You would have to be an idiot to think anyone would want to pay that much to become the default on Apples platform.

Don't kid yourself, Apple was in full control, and knew that they had Google by the balls, so Apple could leverage their platform, and make Google pay 9.5 billion to be the default on Apples platforms, which doesn't look good for Apple. Especially since Apple has antitrust cases as well.

OutdoorAppDeveloper 15 Years · 1292 comments

Here is an Apple news story you won't read on Apple Insider:
Apple is lobbying AGAINST a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China. They wouldn't want to upset the Chinese government over a little thing like forced labor.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-is-lobbying-against-a-bill-aimed-at-stopping-forced-labor-in-china/ar-BB1bdeDL

williamlondon 14 Years · 1426 comments

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

Here is an Apple news story you won't read on Apple Insider:
Apple is lobbying AGAINST a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China. They wouldn't want to upset the Chinese government over a little thing like forced labor.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/apple-is-lobbying-against-a-bill-aimed-at-stopping-forced-labor-in-china/ar-BB1bdeDL

Nice case of whataboutism, nothing whatsoever to do with the article.

mr lizard 15 Years · 354 comments

seantheman said:

Does anyone here think that Google wanted to pay Apple 9.5 billion to be the default search on Apples platforms? You would have to be an idiot to think anyone would want to pay that much to become the default on Apples platform.

So why did they? If Google was so sure they didn’t need to be the default, and that customers would wilfully choose to set them as the default, then they wouldn’t have paid it.

They obviously felt that in order to maintain their search traffic from iPhone users, they needed to pay up. User choice alone wasn’t enough.

In fact it’s so important for them to keep that traffic, that they paid an eye watering nine point five billion dollars to make sure no other search providers became the default.