English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese (Simplified)
Hindi
Japanese
A group of prominent lawyers claimed to be objective last month as they urged a federal judge to take “caution” when imposing antitrust remedies against Google’s online search empire — but many of them have cozy ties to Big Tech, The Post has learned.
US District Judge Amit Mehta is expected to rule by August on the best way to rein in Google’s illegal dominance over online search after ruling last year that the company was a “monopolist.” The Justice Department, rather than merely punishing past misdeeds, wants Google and CEO Sundar Pichai to sell the Chrome web browser, among other remedies.
On May 6, a group of former DOJ and Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcers submitted an amicus brief warning the federal judge against aggressive remedies. The lawyers said their brief was made “in support of neither party” and was intended to guide Mehta on following the “proper remedy standard.”
However, many of brief’s coauthors have direct or indirect links to Google and other Big Tech firms. That includes Joe Sims, who last year dismissed criticism of Google’s widespread evidence destruction as “silly,” and Willard Tom, who once defended Google in the high-profile antitrust lawsuit filed by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games.
Their arguments closely match those of the defense offered by Google, which claims the DOJ’s proposals go far beyond the bounds of antitrust law and that the court risks jeopardizing American AI leadership – and even national security.
The lawyers’ links to Big Tech raised alarms with Google’s critics, including Sacha Haworth, executive director at the Tech Oversight Project, who told The Post that it “speaks volumes that the only people rushing to Google’s defense are people paid by Google to care.”
“If Google is broken up, it will be a win for our digital economy that will lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers,” Haworth added.
Aside from a forced divestment of Chrome, the DOJ wants Google to share its search data with rivals. The agency has also asked Mehta to consider the potential impact of Google’s massive investments in AI-powered search when crafting any remedies.
Elsewhere, the feds want Google to be barred from paying billions to companies like Apple to ensure its search engine is set as the default option on most smartphones. They also propose a forced divestiture of Google’s Android software if initial remedies prove ineffective.
“We’ve long said the DOJ’s proposals go miles beyond the Court’s decision,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “We appreciate that a wide range of experts, academics and businesses agree.”
An amicus brief – also known as a “friend of the court” brief – generally includes information that interested third parties want to flag for the judge’s consideration before reaching a verdict.
In a filing, the brief’s coauthors noted that they were not paid by any outside party and that no outside party had contributed to the writing.
Contributors included Tad Lipsky, who heads up the competition advocacy program at George Mason University’s Global Antitrust Institute – which has received millions in funding from Google and other Big Tech firms while frequently arguing for a light touch on antitrust enforcement.
Sims retired as a partner at law firm Jones Day in 2016. In July 2024, Jones Day successfully secured dismissal of a class-action suit accusing Google of antitrust violations tied to its Maps service.
Last August, Sims raised eyebrows when he argued that Mehta was “silly” for criticizing Google over its deletion of employee chat logs during the DOJ’s search trial – in violation of court orders to preserve evidence.
“No firm has an obligation to create a paper trail for people or entities that may want to attack it,” Sims wrote on X. “If anything, it has a fiduciary obligation to do just the opposite.”
Tom is a former partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius who represented Google against “Fortnite” maker Epic Games’s antitrust lawsuit until his retirement in July 2022. Google eventually lost the suit in a bombshell ruling that has major implications for its “Google Play” app store.
Richard Parker previously represented Apple in the ebooks case bought the DOJ and currently works at Milbank Tweed, a firm that advised Google in the search trial and helped argue its ongoing appeal of the Epic Games verdict.
The brief notes that Parker contributed in “his personal capacity” and had “not worked for Google on this matter or any other matter.”
Terry Calvani worked law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer from 2005 to 2019 – a period of time in which the firm served as an outside counsel for Google in several lawsuits. From 2020 to 2025, Calvini was a senior adviser at strategic communications firm Brunswick Group, which counts Google as a client.
Several enforcers who backed the amicus brief, including Sims and Lipsky, are listed as authors for Truth on the Market – a competition law-focused blog with close ties to the Big Tech-funded International Center for Law and Economics.
Jon Neuchterlein is a nonresident senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, which acknowledges on its website that it has received from donations from the likes of Google, Amazon, and Apple, among other tech firms.
From 2015 to 2024, Neuchterlein was a partner at the law firm Sidley Austin. During his tenure, the firm counted Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Intel among its clients.
In their brief, the antitrust lawyers urged Mehta to take “caution” when considering two elements of the DOJ’s proposal – the forced Chrome divestiture and the search data-sharing requirement – to avoid overstepping the bounds of antitrust law.
“Antitrust remedies in a monopoly maintenance case are intended to terminate the unlawful conduct and prevent its recurrence, and remediate proven harm to competition caused by the illegal conduct,” the brief said.
The lawyers added that remedies that “further than that or that are not narrowly designed to achieve those goals can undermine the purpose of the antitrust laws by inhibiting the very robust competition that those laws are intended to promote.”
