In the ongoing antitrust trial against Google, a stark contrast has emerged between what Google executives wrote and what they've said on the witness stand. The judge, Leonie Brinkema, must now decide whether to believe the written words or the testimonies of Google's high-ranking officials. The Justice Department accuses Google of holding a monopoly on the technology that matches buyers and sellers of online advertising, while Google claims the government is focusing on a narrow slice of the advertising market.

Google's product manager, Jonathan Bellack, is a key witness who wrote an email in 2016 that raises concerns about Google's dominance. In the email, Bellack wondered if Google's control of the platform, exchange, and network was a problem, likening it to a bank owning a stock exchange. However, on the stand, Bellack dismissed his email as "late night, jet-lagged ramblings" and claimed he didn't think Google's control was an issue.

This is not an isolated incident. Most of the current and former Google employees who have testified as government witnesses have rejected their own written words. The Justice Department argues that these employees' written words are a more accurate reflection of reality, and that Google's deletion of internal chats and emails further undermines its claims.

Google's policies on document retention have been deemed "absolutely inappropriate and improper" by Judge Brinkema. The company's "Communicate with Care" policy allowed employees to add lawyers to sensitive emails, marking them as "privileged" and exempt from disclosure. This raises questions about Google's motives and whether it has been truthful in its dealings with the government.

Google's Monopoly: A Tale of Contrasting Words

Actions