Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules

5 August 2024

Google-Cookies. Picture: PA

Google will almost certainly appeal against the decision in a process that may land in the Supreme Court.

A judge has ruled that Google’s search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to quash competition and stifle innovation in a decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies.

The decision issued by US District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter of a century.

After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from senior executives at Google, Microsoft and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Judge Mehta issued his decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in his 277-page ruling.

8.5bn

Estimated worldwide number of queries processed per day by Google's search engine

He said Google’s dominance in the search market is evidence of its monopoly.

Google “enjoys an 89.2% share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9% on mobile devices”, the ruling said.

It represents a major setback for Google and its parent, Alphabet, which had argued that its popularity stemmed from consumers’ overwhelming desire to use a search engine so good at what it does that it has become synonymous with looking things up online.

Google’s search engine processes an estimated 8.5 billion queries per day worldwide, nearly doubling its daily volume from 12 years ago, according to a recent study from the investment firm BOND.

Google will almost certainly appeal against the decision in a process that may land in the Supreme Court.

For now, the decision vindicates antitrust regulators at the Justice Department, which filed its lawsuit nearly four years ago while Donald Trump was still president, and has been escalating it efforts to rein in Big Tech’s power during President Joe Biden’s administration.

“This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” said attorney general Merrick Garland.

“No company, no matter how large or influential, is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”

Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella was one of the Justice Department’s star witnesses (Microsoft/PA)

The case depicted Google as a technological bully that has methodically thwarted competition to protect a search engine that has become the centrepiece of a digital advertising machine that generated nearly 240 billion dollars (£188 billion) in revenue last year.

Justice Department lawyers argued that Google’s monopoly enabled it to charge advertisers artificially high prices while enjoying the luxury of having more time and money to invest in improving the quality of its search engine — a lax approach that affected consumers.

Google ridiculed the allegations, noting that consumers have historically changed search engines when they become disillusioned with the results they are getting.

For instance, Yahoo — now a minor player on the internet — was the most popular search engine during the 1990s before Google came along.

Judge Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sort of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage and restore a more competitive landscape.

The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from shelling out more than 20 billion dollars (£15 billion) annually to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other internet-connected devices.

After the next phase, the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.

If there is a significant shake-up, it could be a coup for Microsoft, whose own power was undermined during the late 1990s when the Justice Department targeted the software maker in an antitrust lawsuit accusing it of abusing the dominance of its Windows operating system on personal computers to lock out competition.

That case mirrored the one brought against Google in several ways and the result could also echo similarly. Just as Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle created distractions and obstacles that opened up more opportunities for Google after its 1998 inception, the decision against Google could be a boon for Microsoft, which already has a market value of more than three trillion dollars (£2.3 trillion).

After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly

Judge Amit Mehta

At one time, Alphabet was worth more than Microsoft, but now trails its rival with a market value of about two trillion dollars (£1.5 trillion).

Besides boosting Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the outcome could damage Google at a critical point that is tilting technology in the age of artificial intelligence.

Microsoft and Google are among the early leaders in AI in a battle that could be affected by Judge Mehta’s decision.

Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella was one of the Justice Department’s star witnesses during the testimony that covered his frustration with Google deals with the likes of Apple that made it nearly impossible for the Bing search engine to make any headway, even as Microsoft poured in more than 100 billion dollars in improvements since 2009.

“You get up in the morning, you brush your teeth and you search on Google,” Mr Nadella said at one point in his evidence. “Everybody talks about the open web, but there is really the Google web.”

He also expressed fear that it might take an antitrust crackdown to ensure the situation does not get worse as AI becomes a bigger force in search.

“Despite my enthusiasm that there is a new angle with AI, I worry a lot that this vicious cycle that I’m trapped in could get even more vicious,” he told the court.

Google still faces other legal threats in the US and abroad. In September, a federal trial is scheduled to begin in Virginia over the Justice Department’s allegations that Google’s advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly.

By Press Association

Google maintains illegal monopoly over search: US judge

AAP
Aug 06, 2024


"Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly," a US judge has ruled, say the search engine illegally exploits its dominance. Photo: AAP

A United States judge has ruled Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation in a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies.

The highly anticipated decision issued by US District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the US Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter century.


After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from top executives at Google, Microsoft and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Mehta issued his potentially market-shifting decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his 277-page ruling.

He said Google’s dominance in the search market is evidence of its monopoly.

Google “enjoys an 89.2 per cent share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9 per cent on mobile devices,” the ruling said.

It represents a major setback for Google and its parent Alphabet Inc, which had steadfastly argued that its popularity stemmed from consumers’ overwhelming desire to use a search engine so good at what it does that it has become synonymous with looking things up online.

Google’s search engine currently processes an estimated 8.5 billion queries per day worldwide, nearly doubling its daily volume from 12 years ago, according to a recent study released by the investment firm BOND.

Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, said the company intends to appeal Mehta’s findings.

“This decision recognises that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker said.

For now, the decision vindicates antitrust regulators at the US Justice Department, which filed its lawsuit nearly four years ago under then-president Donald Trump and has been escalating its efforts to rein in Big Tech’s power during President Joe Biden’s administration.

“This victory against Google is an historic win for the American people,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said.

“No company – no matter how large or influential – is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws.”

The case depicted Google as a technological bully that methodically has thwarted competition to protect a search engine that has become the centrepiece of a digital advertising machine that generated nearly $US240 billion ($370 billion) in revenue last year.

US Justice Department lawyers argued that Google’s monopoly enabled it to charge advertisers artificially high prices while also enjoying the luxury of not having to invest more time and money into improving the quality of its search engine – a lax approach that hurt consumers.

As expected, Mehta’s ruling focused on the billions of dollars Google spends every year to install its search engine as the default option on new mobile phones and tech gadgets.

In 2021 alone, Google spent more than $US26 billion to lock in those default agreements, Mehta said in his ruling.

Google ridiculed those allegations, noting that consumers have historically changed search engines when they become disillusioned with the results they were getting.

For instance, Yahoo was the most popular search engine during the 1990s before Google came along.

Mehta said the evidence at trial showed the importance of the default settings.

He noted that Microsoft’s Bing search engine has 80 per cent share of the search market on the Microsoft Edge browser.

The judge said that shows other search engines can be successful if Google is not locked in as the predetermined default option.

Still, Mehta credited the quality of Google’s product as an important part of its dominance, as well, saying flatly that “Google is widely recognised as the best (general search engine) available in the United States”.

Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sorts of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage done and restore a more competitive landscape.

The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from shelling out billions annually to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other internet-connected devices.

After the next phase, the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.

MONOPOLY BUSTING

Justice Department sues Google to break up its advertising empire
Alexis Keenan and Daniel Howley
Tue, January 24, 2023 at 11:07 AM MST·7 min read

The U.S. Department of Justice and eight states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google (GOOG, GOOGL) on Tuesday, seeking the breakup of the company's online ad business.

This latest action comes more than two years after the agency and a group of state attorneys general joined in another suit alleging Google's search and search advertising businesses violate U.S. antitrust laws.

The Justice Department’s alleges that Google's suite of online advertising tools prevents competitors from entering the online advertising market and blocks publishers from monetizing their own content.

The department further claims that Google is illegally using, or trying to use, its monopoly power, and should be required to divest a host of entities that allow it to carry out the allegedly offending behavior.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai speaks during the Google I/O 2019 keynote session at Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, California on May 7, 2019. 

(Photo by Josh Edelson / AFP)

"Google’s anticompetitive behavior has raised barriers to entry to artificially high levels, forced key competitors to abandon the market for ad tech tools, dissuaded potential competitors from joining the market, and left Google’s few remaining competitors marginalized and unfairly disadvantaged," the complaint states.

"Google has thwarted meaningful competition and deterred innovation in the digital advertising industry, taken supra-competitive profits for itself, and prevented the free market from functioning fairly to support the interests of the advertisers and publishers who make today’s powerful internet possible."

The DOJ is specifically calling for Google to divest at least its Google Ad Manager suite, including both Google’s publisher ad server, DFP, and Google's ad exchange, AdX.

Shares of Google parent Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL) fell as much as 1.6% following the news.

Pennsylvania State University law professor John Lopatka said the stakes for Google increase with the Justice Department's new lawsuit.

"The multiple actions expand the scope of the litigation for Google, and the greater scope somewhat increases its litigation burden," Lopatka told Yahoo Finance. "Reaching negotiated settlements becomes harder as the number of plaintiff groups increases."

Lopatka adds that a DOJ victory, as opposed to a victory by the states, would dramatically benefit private plaintiffs by establishing Google's liability for anticompetitive conduct that injured them.

A victory by the states would indeed bolster the cases of private plaintiffs, but not nearly as much as would a DOJ victory, as private plaintiffs would need to show only damages to impose liability for Google's anticompetitive conduct.

Yahoo Finance has reached out to Google for comment and will update this story when it receives a response.

Prior to the DOJ's filing, Alphabet reportedly sought to quell the DOJ's antitrust concerns by offering to split up its ad auction and ad placement businesses. That offer, according to The Wall Street Journal, was to maintain the would-be separate entities under the company's larger, parent company, Alphabet.

Google has for years faced scrutiny from domestic and overseas lawmakers and regulators concerning its dominance across multiple online and mobile markets.

In the U.S, the firm has faced investigations by the DOJ, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general over suspicions that the company’s search and digital advertising businesses operate as illegal monopolies.

In 2021, dozens of attorneys general sued the company, alleging that it was operating illegal monopolies in the market for Android app distribution by imposing technical barriers that prevent third parties from distributing apps outside the Play Store.

Over a decade ago, the company was fined roughly $10 billion (8.6 billion euros) by the European Commission, the European Union’s antitrust watchdog. Those fines resulted from three separate antitrust violations alleged by the Commission.

In 2017, the company was hit by the Commission for allegedly abusing its market dominance in search, and again in 2018 for allegedly abusing its market power in the mobile space by preloading its own apps on new Android phones. And in 2019, the company was again fined for limiting its rivals from working with companies that already had deals with Google’s AdSense platform.
Advertising

Google’s digital advertising business has become an antitrust target due to its unrivaled size and volume. The company holds a commanding lead in the space and controls some of the most important links in the online advertising chain — centrally its DoubleClick platform, a premier tool for online publishers, helping them create, manage, and track online marketing campaigns.

Acquired in 2007, DoubleClick was cited by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) as one of the major acquisitions Google should be forced to unwind to improve competition in the advertising space.

Google, and competitor Facebook (META), have also been lambasted for the impact their outsized share of the online advertising market has on the media industry. With Google competing directly with online publishers for digital ad space, publishers have been forced to significantly cut back newsroom staff, sell themselves off, or close down entirely.

In Feb. 2021, Australia passed legislation that forces Google and Facebook to negotiate payment deals with media companies for using their content. Previous attempts to force Google to pay for media it benefits from ended in failure. In 2014, Spain passed legislation that would force internet sites to pay for content it used from publishers including headline and news snippets.

But rather than comply, Google simply shut down its Spanish Google News site. Users could still find articles in Google’s search results, but couldn’t use the Google News platform to get news from Spain-based publications anywhere in the world.
Search

Google is already defending itself against the DOJ's lawsuit alleging illegal dominance in the online search industry. As of Dec. 2022, Google controlled more than 92% of the world’s search traffic market share, according to StatCounter. In its lawsuit filed in Oct. 2020, the Justice Department and state attorneys general allege the company is unlawfully maintaining monopolies through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices in the search and search advertising markets.

According to the Justice Department, Google's exclusionary agreements, "collectively lock up the primary avenues through which users access search engines, and thus the internet, by requiring that Google be set as the preset default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers worldwide and, in many cases, prohibiting preinstallation of a competitor."

Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law during a hearing on "Online Platforms and Market Power" in the Rayburn House office Building on Capitol Hill, in Washington, U.S., July 29, 2020. Mandel Ngan/Pool via REUTERS

In 2013, the FTC declined to take action against Google after an agency investigation of its search business. The decision followed a $22.5 million fine imposed on the company the prior year to settle claims that it violated a privacy settlement with the FTC agreeing that it would avoid placing “cookies” on and serving targeted advertisements to users of Apple’s competing browser company Safari.
Self-preferencing

Accusations that Google favors its own products or reduces the visibility of competitors in its search results have also been circulating for years.

One of the company’s biggest critics is Yelp, which, along with TripAdvisor, has hit at the company for placing Google-sourced ads above algorithmically-defined search results in the Google search page.

In July 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported on its investigation into Google’s search algorithm, finding that the tech giant favored its own YouTube videos in search results over those from competing video streaming services.

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.

Illegal monopoly?


ALEXANDRIA (AP) – It happens in milliseconds, ideally, as you browse the web. Networks of computers and software analyse who you are, what you are looking at and buy and sell the advertisements you see on web pages.

The company that most likely determines which ads you get, and how much an advertiser paid to get on your screen, is Google.

In fact, the United States (US) Justice Department and a coalition of states said Google’s dominance over the technology that controls the sale of billions of Internet display ads every day is so thorough that it constitutes an illegal monopoly that should be broken up.

A trial under way in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, will determine if Google’s ad tech stack constitutes an illegal monopoly. The first week has included a deep dive into exactly how Google’s products work together to conduct behind-the-scenes electronic auctions that place ads in front of consumers in the blink of an eye.

Online advertising has rapidly evolved. Fifteen or so years ago, if you saw an Internet display ad, there was a pretty good chance it featured people dancing over their enthusiasm for low mortgage rates, and those ads were foisted on you whether you were looking at real estate or searching for baseball scores.

Now, the algorithms that match ads to your interests are carefully calibrated, sometimes to an almost creepy extent.

Google, for its part, said it has invested billions of dollars to improve the quality of ads that consumers see, and ensure that advertisers can reach the consumers they’re seeking.

The Justice Department contends that what Google has also done over the years is rig the automated auctions of ad sales to favour itself over other would-be players in the industry, and also deprived the publishing industry of hundreds of millions of dollars it would have received if the auctions were truly competitive.

Government witnesses have explained the auction process and how it has evolved over the years in detail at the Virginia trial.

In the government’s depiction, there are three distinct tools that interact to sell an ad and place it in front of a consumer. There’s the ad servers used by publishers to sell space on their websites, particularly the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of a web page. Ad networks are used by advertisers to buy ad space across an array of relevant websites.

And in between is the ad exchange, which matches the website publisher to the would-be advertiser by hosting an instant auction.

Publishers naturally want to receive as high a price as possible for their ad space, but testimony at trial has shown that didn’t always happen due to the rules Google imposed.

For years, Google gave its ad exchange, called AdX, the first chance to match a publisher’s proposed floor price. For instance, if a publisher wanted to sell a specific ad impression for a minimum of 50 cents, Google’s software would give its own ad exchange the first chance to purchase. If Google’s ad exchange bid 50 cents, it would win the auction, even if competing ad exchanges down the line were willing to pay more.

Google said the system was necessary to ensure ads loaded quickly. If the computers entertained bids from every ad exchange, it would take too long.

Publishers, dissatisfied with this system, found a workaround to conduct the auctions outside of Google’s purview, a process that became known as “header bidding”. Internal Google documents introduced at trial described header bidding as an “existential threat” to Google’s market share.

Google’s response relied on its control of all three components of the process.

If publishers conducted an auction outside Google’s purview but they still used Google’s publisher ad server, called DoubleClick For Publishers, that software forced the winning bid back into Google’s Ad Exchange.

If Google was willing to match the price that publishers had received under the header-bidding auction, Google would win the auction.

Professor Ramamoorthi Ravi, an expert at Carnegie Mellon University, said rules imposed by Google failed to maximise value for publishers and “seem to have been designed to advantage Google’s own products”.

Publishers could stop using Google’s ad exchange entirely, but at trial said they were reluctant to do so because then they would also lose access to Google’s huge, exclusive cache of advertisers in its Google Ads network, which was only available through Google’s ad exchange. Google, for its part, said it hasn’t run auctions this way since 2019, and that in the last five years Google’s share of the display ad market has begun to erode.

It said that tying its buy side, sell side and middleman products together helps them run seamlessly and quickly, and minimises fraudulent ads or malware risks.

Google also said its innovations over the last 15 years fuelled the improvements in matching online ads to consumer interests. Google said it was at the forefront of introducing “real-time bidding,” which allowed an advertiser selling shoes, for instance, to be paired up with a consumer whose online profile indicated an interest in purchasing shoes.

Those innovations, according to Google, allowed publishers to sell their available ad space at a premium because the advertiser would know that the ad was going to the eyeballs of someone interested in their product or service.

The Justice Department said that even though Google no longer runs its auctions in the ways described, it helped Google maintain its monopoly in the ad tech market in the years leading up to 2019, and that its existing monopoly allows Google to keep up to 36 cents on the dollar of every ad purchase it brokers when the transaction runs through all of its various products.

The Virginia trial comes just a month after a judge in Washington ruling that Google’s search engine also constitutes an illegal monopoly. No decision in that case has been made on what, if any, remedies the judge will impose.

No Tech for Apartheid: Google Workers Arrested for Protesting Company’s $1.2B Contract with Israel

By Mohammad Khatami, Ray Westrick , Gabriel Schubiner , Amy Goodman 

April 17, 2024

Source: Democracy Now!

Democracy Now! speaks with two of the Google employees who were arrested staging sit-ins on Tuesday at the company’s offices in New York City and in Sunnyvale, California, to protest the tech giant’s work with the Israeli government. Organized by the group No Tech for Apartheid, the protesters are demanding Google withdraw from Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion contract to provide cloud computing services to the Israeli military. “Google execs basically chose to arrest workers for speaking out against the use of our technology to power the first AI-powered genocide,” says Google software engineer Mohammad Khatami, who was arrested in New York. Google worker-organizer Ray Westrick, who was arrested occupying CEO Thomas Kurian’s office, says “more people are willing to organize and risk their jobs in order to take a stand against complicity in genocide.” We also speak with No Tech for Apartheid organizer and former Google worker Gabriel Schubiner, who calls on the tech industry to divest from Google and Amazon services. “Technology workers actually have a lot of power to shift this paradigm and to remove technology from this deep complicity with the Israeli occupation,” Schubiner says.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York, with Juan González in Chicago.

Several Google employees, at least nine, were arrested Tuesday evening after staging sit-ins at the company’s offices in New York and in California to protest the tech giant’s work with the Israeli government. The sit-ins, organized by the activist group No Tech for Apartheid, took place at Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian’s office in Sunnyvale, California, and the 10th floor commons of Google’s New York office, which is right around the corner from Democracy Now!

Protesters are calling for Google to withdraw from a $1.2 billion contract to provide cloud computing services to the Israeli government, known as Project Nimbus. Last week, Time magazine reported Google’s work on the project involves providing direct services to the Israeli military.

The sit-ins were accompanied by outdoor protests at the Google offices here in New York and in Sunnyvale, San Francisco and Seattle, Washington. Workers and outside activists have opposed the contract since it was signed in 2021, but protests have ramped up over the past several months since Israel’s latest bombardment of Gaza.

No Tech for Apartheid says Google is enabling and profiting from Israel’s use of artificial intelligence to develop a “kill list” to target Palestinians in Gaza for assassination with little human oversight. The Israeli military is also using Google Photos for facial recognition across Gaza and the West Bank to identify and detain Palestinians en masse.

No Tech for Apartheid has published an open letter, co-signed by 18 other groups, that demands Google and Amazon immediately cancel their work on Project Nimbus. The letter has gathered more than 94,000 signatures from the general public.

For more, we’re joined by two of the arrested Google workers. Ray Westrick is with us. She’s a Google worker-organizer with the No Tech for Apartheid campaign, among the workers who occupied Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian’s office in Sunnyvale, California. She’s joining us from Sunnyvale. And here in New York, we’re joined by Mohammad Khatami, a Google software engineer who was arrested at the sit-in at Google’s office in New York. He’s joining us along with Gabriel Schubiner, a former software engineer at Google Research and an organizer with the No Tech for Apartheid campaign. And before that, he was with Jewish Diaspora in Tech.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Mohammad, let’s begin with you. You were, just hours ago, in the jail —

MOHAMMAD KHATAMI: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: — in the local police precinct. Talk about why you were willing to get arrested.

MOHAMMAD KHATAMI: Yeah. Well, rather than, you know, consider the demands that we’ve been raising for years now and listening to workers and considering the things that we’ve been raising, Thomas Kurian and Google execs basically chose to arrest workers for speaking out against the use of our technology to power the first AI-powered genocide. So, we were willing to get arrested for that, because at this point we aren’t willing to be lied to by our higher-ups anymore. We aren’t willing to be disrespected by our higher-ups anymore. And we wanted to take that to the offices and make sure it was understood by them, yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: How do you sense is the support that you have among other Google workers, the degree of the dissatisfaction with the policies of Google?

MOHAMMAD KHATAMI: Yeah. I mean, Google has done a really good job at creating a culture of fear and retaliation against workers in general. But what we noticed was beautiful. So many people came up to our sit-in and basically showed support and felt that they were inspired by the work that we were doing, and felt inspired to speak out, which is exactly what we were going for. We want workers to feel like we have the power to choose where our technology is going and who we’re contributing to. So I felt really happy to see that, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray Westrick, you’re on the West Coast. You were arrested in California. Talk about this Project Nimbus and why you were willing to get arrested, and what the response — were you in the offices of the Google Cloud CEO?

RAY WESTRICK: Yes, we sat in at the office of Thomas Kurian, the Google Cloud CEO, to protest Project Nimbus, which is a $1.2 billion contract with the Israeli government and military between Google and Amazon. We also were demanding the protection of our co-workers, especially our Palestinian, Arab and Muslim co-workers, who have been consistently retaliated against, harassed and doxxed for speaking out about Project Nimbus and, you know, the humanity of Palestinians. So, we were there in solidarity with them. We were there to protest the contract, which is being directly sold — providing technology directly to the Israeli military as it inflicts a genocide on Palestinians in Gaza. And yeah, that is why we chose to sit in Thomas Kurian’s office.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Ray, could you — was there any response from the CEO or his office? And are you concerned about losing your job? Why — when did you decide to take this action?

RAY WESTRICK: Yeah. We did not receive any response from the CEO. And I think it’s really telling that they would rather let us sit there for over 10 hours and arrest us for peacefully sitting in his office than have leadership engage in our demands in any way at all. So, we’ve received no response from the CEO, and we were forcibly removed by the police.

And I — working at Google has been, you know, an honor. I really love my team. I love the work I do. But I can’t in good conscience not do anything while Google is a part of this contract, while Google is selling technology to the Israeli military, or any military. And so, it was a risk I was willing to take, and I think it’s a risk a lot of my co-workers are willing to take, because a lot of people are really agitated about this and have consistently made their demands clear and have faced retaliation for it. So, I chose to sit in, knowing the risks, out of care for the use of our technology, out of care for the impact of our technology and care for my co-workers.

AMY GOODMAN: For our radio audience, I wanted to let people know that Ray is wearing a T-shirt that says “Googler against genocide,” with “genocide” in the famous multicolor of “Google,” that it’s so well known for. I wanted to bring Gabriel Schubiner into this conversation, a former software engineer at Google Research, an organizer with the No Tech for Apartheid campaign, and ask you — you know, we had you on more than a year ago — this is before Israel’s latest attack on Gaza — talking about exactly this. And you were with a Jewish organization of Google workers at that time speaking out. Talk about the whole history of Project Nimbus.

GABRIEL SCHUBINER: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: And the resistance against it.

GABRIEL SCHUBINER: Yeah. Thank you so much.

So, Project Nimbus was signed in May of 2021 while bombs were being dropped on Gaza, while Palestinians were being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah and beaten at Al-Aqsa Mosque. That was really a point — when we found out about Project Nimbus, personally, for me, it was a turning point, where I no longer felt able to continue doing my work without engaging and organizing. There was a group of people that felt very similarly, so we started a petition. We were connected, got connected with Amazon workers, with community organizations, Jewish Voice for Peace and MPower Change, and spun a campaign out of that.

I want to be clear: Like, the campaign really is driven by worker concerns and worker needs around the ethical use of our labor, as well as the direct workplace concerns of the, like, health and safety concerns around working at a company that is facilitating genocide. We’ve known for a long time that this project was directly targeted at the military. It’s been reported in press that Google was giving trainings directly to the IOF. We know that Google gave trainings directly to Mossad. We know that the IOF —

AMY GOODMAN: When you say ”IOF,” explain the term.

GABRIEL SCHUBINER: I’m sorry, the — yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Because people are used to hearing ”IDF,” Israeli Defense Forces.

GABRIEL SCHUBINER: Right, yes. Yeah, it’s Israeli occupation forces, just to indicate, so we’re not repeating their messaging that their really aggressive repression of Palestinians is an act of defense. We know that it’s an act of occupation, so we say ”IOF.”

And so, we’ve known for a long time that this project was directly targeted at the Israeli military. But it was only recently, through this last contract that Google signed directly with the IOF, that we recognized that Google was really doubling down, that this contract is directly intended to facilitate military use. And we know that Google was chosen over other companies because of the advanced AI technology that they’re able to offer. So, given that we’ve learned how the IOF is using AI in this war, we really see this as like a really critical campaign for Palestinian liberation.

To speak to your point about the resistance against the project, we’ve been working against this project as workers for — since it was signed three years ago. We have been doing organizing. We have been doing, you know, base building and labor organizing. We’ve had protests externally and internally. We’ve had signed petitions. We’ve done outreach to our executives through internal forums, through chatrooms, through every available means, because, I think — you know, understanding, like, this contract really is — like, it really is an incredible issue for our work, like, all workers’ labor at Google. So many workers’ labor is contributing directly to this project, because all of the technology at Google is like deeply intertwined with each other. So, yeah, so we see this as really important, yeah.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Gabe, I wanted to ask you — the average person, who’s not a Google worker, who might support your stand and who uses Google multiple times a day around the world, what are you calling for them to do?

GABRIEL SCHUBINER: Right. So, I mean, we’re calling for everyone around the world to really, like, help us with awareness, like, help us make it known that Google is a war profiteer. I think Google is so deeply embedded in people’s lives — right? — that it’s hard to ask for a boycott. But I think we’re calling specifically on people in the tech industry to divest from Google and Amazon. Google Cloud services and Amazon Web Services underlie a vast majority of the internet, but there are other options. So, technology workers actually have a lot of power to shift this paradigm and to, like, remove technology from this deep complicity with Israeli occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: Mohammad Khatami, can you talk about your own family background and why you so particularly care right now about what’s going on in Gaza?

MOHAMMAD KHATAMI: Yeah, yes. So, I come from a Muslim family. I was raised Muslim. And it’s really hard to wake up seeing the images of children slaughtered and know that your — you know, the work you’re doing is contributing to this. I’ve lost sleep. It’s just been extremely difficult to focus on work and think that you’re working for something that is contributing to the mass slaughter that’s taking place. And for speaking out against that, I’ve literally been called a supporter of terrorism, which is something that —

AMY GOODMAN: Called by?

MOHAMMAD KHATAMI: You know, by co-workers and HR and people in the company, a supporter of terrorism, which is, you know, something — it’s like a schoolyard insult. It’s something I haven’t heard since middle school. And that’s just an example of the retaliation and the harassment and the hatred that we face just for speaking up against our work being used in this way.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned about losing your job?

MOHAMMAD KHATAMI: Absolutely. But it doesn’t — it’s not even important to me at all compared to working for something that is meaningful and having a good impact on the planet. I don’t want to have any association with this genocide. And I would hope that Google would change their mind about it, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Ray Westrick, where do you see this movement going from here? And can you talk more about the Jewish-Muslim alliance around this among Google workers and former Google workers?

RAY WESTRICK: Yeah. I only see this movement growing and continuing to apply pressure. We received so much support during the sit-in. I’ve received so many personal messages from people, you know, thanking me for being vocal, and asking how they can be more vocal and get more involved. So I think this is absolutely growing. I think Google knows that this will continue, that, you know, workers are very agitated about this and will continue to speak up and apply pressure. And I think that’s why it was important for them to silence us. But this movement is growing, and more people are finding out about this, and more people are willing to organize and risk their jobs in order to take a stand against complicity in genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank —

RAY WESTRICK: And yeah, I think this has been a really unifying campaign for people of all backgrounds. And I know, specifically, a lot of us came together because we were specifically concerned about how Google has treated and retaliated against our Palestinian, Arab and Muslim colleagues, especially, like Mohammad mentioned, a lot of them have experienced harassment and doxxing for speaking out in like the appropriate channels at Google and have been consistently ignored and harassed and retaliated against. And so, we had to come together to say that we can’t let this happen anymore. We have to come together in protection of our co-workers and each other and in protection of, you know, the ethical use of our technology, to make sure that we’re not building technology that’s being used for harm. So, I think it’s been a really unifying campaign that is really grounded in taking care of each other and really grounded in making a positive impact and not facilitating more harm with technology.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you all for being with us. Ray Westrick and Mohammad Khatami are both Google workers who were arrested yesterday, Ray in the offices of the Google Cloud CEO in Sunnyvale, California, and Mohammad here in New York. Also Gabriel Schubiner, a former software engineer at Google Research and an organizer with the No Tech for Apartheid campaign, before that, with Jewish Diaspora in Tech.

Google screwed rivals to protect monopoly, says Uncle Sam in antitrust lawsuit: We go inside the Sherman parked on a Silicon Valley lawn

Search engine giant has officially become 1990s Microsoft

Tue 20 Oct 2020 

Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco BIO 

Analysis The US Department of Justice has launched its long-awaited antitrust action against Google, accusing the tech giant of unlawfully protecting its search monopoly through “anti-competitive and exclusionary practices.”

The action doesn't explicitly mention breaking up Google, but does ask for "structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm," which is going to send shivers down the backs of Sundar Pichai and the rest of the Alphabet team.

In a striking parallel to antitrust action taken against Microsoft back in 1998, the accompanying 64-page lawsuit [PDF] cites the Sherman Act and accuses Google of “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States.”

Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen explicitly referenced the context in the DoJ’s official announcement: “As with its historic antitrust actions against AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998, the Department is again enforcing the Sherman Act to restore the role of competition and open the door to the next wave of innovation—this time in vital digital markets.”

It is the first major antitrust action taken against the new wave of tech giants – Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook – and is likely to be just the start in a series of legal challenges to Alphabet's market power.

The Justice Dept's lawsuit is joined by 11 state attorneys general – all Republican, reflecting the dire state of partisan politics in the US. Last month, an excoriating Congressional report that also accused tech giants of abusing their market power was formally supported only by Democrats, even though both political sides are largely in agreement. We note a second group of state attorneys general, a mix of Dems and Republicans, are preparing a separate antitrust case against Google, so look out for that.

Today's lawsuit itself has a relatively narrow focus given Google’s massive scale: its search and search advertising markets. But, as the complaint notes, the impact is huge.

“Google is the monopoly gatekeeper to the internet for billions of users and countless advertisers worldwide. For years, Google has accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States and has used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising,” the DoJ charges.

An Apple a day

The lawsuit digs into the agreements that Google has with other large tech companies to make it the default search engine on computers and devices, pointing out that they are exclusionary and “collectively lock up the primary avenues through which users access search engines, and thus the internet.” It homes in on the extent of Google's monopoly in internet search:

Between its exclusionary contracts and owned-and-operated properties, Google effectively owns or controls search distribution channels accounting for roughly 80 percent of the general search queries in the United States. Largely as a result of Google’s exclusionary agreements and anticompetitive conduct, Google in recent years has accounted for nearly 90 percent of all general-search-engine queries in the United States, and almost 95 percent of queries on mobile devices.

It also pushes the issue that ultimately sank Microsoft in the 1990s over its Internet Explorer browser: Google makes its search engine the default on billions of devices, prevents the pre-installation of competitors, and in some cases doesn’t allow people to delete its software.

Of particular focus is the deal with Google and Apple where Google pays Apple billions of dollars to make Google the default search on Apple’s iOS devices. Combined with similar deals with web browser companies, phone makers, and mobile networks, Google has created “a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization,” the government argues.

Big Tech to face its Ma Bell moment? US House Dems demand break-up of 'monopolists' Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google

READ MORE

To make the antitrust charges stick and so force change, however, the DoJ will need to demonstrate that this behavior results in harm to consumers. It argues that Google’s actions “reduce the ability of innovative new companies to develop, compete, and discipline Google’s behavior.”

It goes on: “Google has foreclosed any meaningful search competitor from gaining vital distribution and scale, eliminating competition for a majority of search queries in the United States. By restricting competition in search, Google’s conduct has harmed consumers by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data), lessening choice in search, and impeding innovation.”

And further: “By suppressing competition in advertising, Google has the power to charge advertisers more than it could in a competitive market and to reduce the quality of the services it provides them.”

Google: Antitrust is so 1990s

This is something Google has hit back at straight away. Kent Walker, Google's global affairs senior veep took up just this point in a statement filed shortly after the lawsuit went public.

"Today’s lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed," he opined. "People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives.

"This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers. To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use."

He points out that paying to promote your own products is perfectly legal and that people use Google as their default search engine because it's the best. It would be easy enough to choose another vendor, he argued, since people downloaded over 200 billion apps last year to get the software of their choice.

When you tell Chrome to wipe private data about you, it spares two websites from the purge: Google.com, YouTube

READ MORE

"This isn’t the dial-up 1990s, when changing services was slow and difficult, and often required you to buy and install software with a CD-ROM," he said.

"Today, you can easily download your choice of apps or change your default settings in a matter of seconds—faster than you can walk to another aisle in the grocery store."

As for the lawsuit itself, while you could argue that the narrow focus is a good thing, there are signs that it has been rushed, which may ultimately prove to be dangerously short-sighted.

A slew of attorneys working on the case resigned last month citing pressure from the Attorney General William Barr to launch the lawsuit before election day. They wanted more time to pull the case together.

The result has been that the DoJ has fallen back heavily on its successful case against Microsoft, drawing clear parallels. But as similar as Microsoft and Google are on the surface – tech giants using their extraordinary resources to control markets – there is a world of difference between the internet of the 1990s and now.

The lawsuit feels a little outdated in that respect and may not advance a necessary shift in antitrust thinking for the new digital era. For example, the lawsuit skims over the fact that Google has been increasingly favoring its own services over competitors; for example putting its own listings above those from others like Yelp.

It also barely touches the main driver of the entire modern tech economy: data. Access to people’s data, and connecting that data to individuals, building ever-larger databases to sell to advertisers is behind much of the tech giant’s behavior, particularly when it comes to anti-competitive actions and privacy violations.

That could be a major tactical error as the antitrust lawsuit could – and arguably should – have been used to build a legal record on the issue of data which could then be moved forward to tackle other companies like Facebook which don’t fit so neatly into the traditional antitrust bucket.

Lawyers can cash in

There are also numerous examples of the lawsuit feeling a little rushed and lacking the solid foundation that you would expect from such a huge case. As one example, take this sentence:

“This leaves the preset default general search engine with de facto exclusivity. As Google itself has recognized, this is particularly true on mobile devices, where defaults are especially sticky.”

There is no explanation of “especially sticky” – a phrase that the tech industry instinctively understands but which the legal system is likely to be completely confused by. The case doesn’t feel sufficiently locked down, especially when Google is going to throw every lawyer it has at the case and can afford to pick at every small point.

As for the chances of success: it should be a no-brainer. There is ample evidence of Google’s misbehavior and it should be easy to prove that one company having an effective monopoly over something as critical as searching the internet – a monopoly it aggressively protects – is not in the interests of American citizens.

But there is a world of difference between winning the case and having a real impact on the future. Google will fight extremely hard to limit the impact of the case on its business model and it is easy to see how it could still end up being the default search engine even after it is banned from pushing exclusionary agreements. The improvements could be slight.

And, if antitrust actions are not pulled further into the digital era through this Google case, it is possible that a company like Facebook could escape largely unscathed. Nevertheless, after nearly a decade of Google getting away with increasingly monopolistic actions – let’s not forget the FTC voted against its staff’s recommendation to investigate Google back in 2012 – it is good to see the US government finally act.

It’s just a shame it seems to have rushed things at the last minute for pure political reasons. ®

PS: Google's stock price is up more than 2.5 per cent at time of writing on the lawsuit's filing.

THE REGISTER

Google uses medical leave to oust workers alleging discrimination, employees say

April Glaser and Char Adams
Sun, March 7, 2021

Benjamin Cruz, a former instructional designer in Google’s Cloud division, was caught off guard when a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected.

Cruz, who is Mexican American and prefers to be identified by the pronouns they/them, reported the incident to human resources in 2019 where personnel told them they should “assume good intent,” Cruz recalled in an interview. Unsatisfied, Cruz asked human resources to look deeper into the incident, and an HR official said an investigation into the matter had been closed, Cruz said.

So, Cruz sought help from human resources again. The solution? Urge Cruz to take medical leave and tend to their mental health before moving to a new role in the company. Cruz went on medical leave, and hoped to take the company up on its offer for a new position, they said. But Cruz was turned down from every role they applied for, so they were forced to quit.

“After I made that complaint, my work started getting pushed out from under me, but my team acted like everything was fine. I wanted to find help,” Cruz said. “When the medical leave was recommended to me, it was like an automatic process.”

Benjamin Cruz in Los Angeles. (Allison Zaucha / for NBC News)

Google declined to comment on Cruz’s allegations.

Cruz’s experience with Google’s internal human resources personnel echoes that of several former and current Google employees, including two prominent Black women, Timnit Gebru and April Curley, who were pushed out of Google at the end of last year. Both women were known for their advocacy for increased diversity in the tech industry, and when their complaints about how the company handled racial and gender discrimination reached human resources, they were both given the same advice: undergo mental health counseling or take medical leave.

In the weeks since both women’s departures, nine other current and former Google employees have come forward to say they were treated the same way. They consulted human resources after colleagues made comments about their skin color or Black hairstyles, or asked if they were sexually interested in their teammates. They also contacted human resources to report retaliation after protesting sexual harassment issues and to advocate for raises for Black people to match white employees’ pay. Each time, human resource personnel recommended the employees seek therapy or take medical leave to address their mental health — despite their mental well-being having nothing to do with their complaints. An additional 12 current and former Google employees confirmed that this is a common practice at Google’s human resources department.

“Going on leave is so normalized. I can think of 10 people that I know of in the last year that have gone on mental health leave because of the way they were treated,” said a former Google employee, who is a person of color and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasnot authorized to speak about his work at Google. He went on medical leave last year after he said he had numerous unproductive conversations with human resources about how his colleagues discussed race.

In early 2020, a Black woman attended a Google meeting about supporting women at the company where data was presented that showed the rate that underrepresented minority employees were leaving the company. When she said that Black, Latina and Native American women have vastly different experiences than their white female colleagues and advised that Google address the issue internally, her manager brusquely responded, telling her that her suggestion was not relevant, the woman said.

The woman then complained to human resources, who advised her to coach the manager about her problematic response or take medical leave to tend to her own mental health, she said. The woman also spoke on the condition of anonymity because she’s still an employee and not permitted to speak to reporters.

“It felt belittling. I wasn’t in shock because I had heard it before. I had watched other leaders in the organization take these mental health leaves and then disappear,” she said. “It was clear that they weren’t going to take me seriously.”

Google said in a statement that the company is committed to supporting employees who raise concerns about workplace treatment.

“We have a well-defined process for how employees can raise concerns and we work to be extremely transparent about how we handle complaints,” said Jennifer Rodstrom, a Google spokeswoman. “All concerns reported to us are investigated rigorously, and we take firm action against employees who violate our policies.”
Pushed out

Gebru and Curley worked in vastly different parts of Google. Gebru was a lead researcher on Google’s Ethical AI team and is one of the highest-profile Black women in her field, known for her work uncovering racial bias in facial recognition systems. Curley was a tech recruiter who brought in new talent from historically Black colleges and universities. Workers said they felt motivated to speak after Gebru and Curley’s departures, in which both women said they were fired after speaking out about racism and sexism at the company.

Curley is one of several Google employees that reported problems with race discrimination within the company. (Joe Buglewicz / for NBC News)

Google would not comment on Gebru’s ousting. But the company’s head of research said Gebru resigned. The company declined to comment on Curley’s termination, but said in a statement it disagrees with Curley’s characterization of her departure.

In her six years at Google, Curley said she never received a raise or promotion, which depends on managers’ input. She was assigned nine different managers during her tenure, two of whom she reported to human resources for allegedly mistreating her and her team, a majority of whom were Black women. Each time, Curley says she was told that Google had investigated the complaints and found nothing wrong. She said she was then offered mental health support or the opportunity to take medical leave.

Curley said that, in 2019, a manager asked her which of her teammates she would sleep with. “I gave him a lot of attitude after that, and it went downhill from there,” Curley said. She said she experienced retaliation in the months that followed, including being regularly talked down to in front of her colleagues.

She filed a formal complaint about her experience with this manager. Then, in December 2019, Google cut her pay by $20,000, Curley said. Also following her complaint, Curley was put on a performance improvement plan, a formal agreement about how her work would improve, which only added more stress. After telling human resources officials she continued to feel anxious about her work situation, they advised her to take medical leave to manage her mental health. Google declined to comment on Curley’s allegations.

“It felt like they didn’t care about my mental health,” she said.

The first time, she took the recommended medical leave. But Curley did not take the second leave. She, along with several other employees, said when they went on medical leave, they returned to find they had new managers or were moved into new parts of the organization. Because these new managers did not know them well enough to provide adequate reviews, they did not receive raises or promotions.

“I was supporting my family, my nieces and nephews and my mom, and to not be able to do that is traumatic in a different way,” Curley said.

Image: April Curley. (Joe Buglewicz / for NBC News)

Diversity reports

For years, Google has highlighted its commitment to a diverse workforce. In 2014, Google became one of the first tech companies to publicize its workforce’s racial and gender makeup in an annual diversity report. The 2020 report revealed that Google saw a less than 1 percent increase in Black hires from 2019 to 2020 across the company. The percentage of Latino employees working at Google rose by 0.2 percent that year.

But none of Google’s competitors have done much better. Apple hasn’t shared diversity data since 2018, but reported a 2 percent drop in the number of Black employees in technical roles from 2016 to 2018. Facebook reports its percentage of Black employees in technical roles rose 0.2 percent from 2019 to 2020 and increased 0.1 percent companywide.

While Google reportedly spent $265 million on diversity efforts in 2014 and 2015, it still didn’t result in much change. From 2014 to 2019, Google increased its Black hires across its workforce by 2 percent, according to its 2020 report. It increased its Latino hires by 0.7 percent from 2014 to 2019, the report shows. While the company would not reveal how many employees work at Google specifically, The San Jose Mercury News reported last year that it had about 23,000 employees at its main campus in Mountain View, California, and 50,000 employees statewide, according to its economic impact report. Google had more than 10,000 employees in New York state, according to its own economic impact report.

“The fact that they’re spending a lot of money on DEI efforts and yet the actual composition of the company isn’t changing means that they’re not truly committed to changing the environment,” said Meredith Broussard, a New York University professor who has written extensively on Silicon Valley culture. “If tech companies truly cared about having more diversity in their ranks, they would fix it.”

Suggesting therapy

Before Gebru’s departure, she said she regularly raised issues on internal team mailing lists and with her managers about how women were treated at Google. But when her messages were forwarded to human resource specialists, Gebru said they advised her to seek out mental health resources.

“They’re like, ‘Well, if there’s something wrong with you, here are all these therapy resources.’” said Gebru. “And I would respond that no amount of support system is going to get rid of Google’s hostile work environment. I have friends. I go dancing. I have hobbies and therapy already.”

Following Gebru’s departure, Google held a forum for employees to discuss racism at the company, according to three current employees who attended. The first half, they said, was dedicated to sharing Google’s side of the story.

“A good 20 minutes of the call was just them discrediting her. This was a clear way of showing you that this is what could happen to you if you speak up,” one Google employee said. That call was followed by another session for Black employees to discuss their concerns with Gebru’s case with a counselor present.

“People were sharing really brilliant reflections on how painful Dr. Gebru’s firing was for them. And the therapist was just repeating it back saying, ‘Yes, yes, I hear you,’” said another Google worker who was on the call. “It was this pattern. Their real concerns were dismissed as feelings.”

The three employees spoke anonymously because they are not permitted to speak to the news media. Google declined to comment on the meeting.

Google confirmed to NBC that it concluded its investigation into Gebru’s ousting, but did not make its findings public. The company said it will implement new procedures to handle employee exits and increase its staff handling employee retention, according to Axios.

Workplace diversity and inclusion experts say it is common for human resource officials to use mental health and well-being as a tactic to ignore discrimination — and even participate in it.

“The broader pattern of HR not being supportive, continuing to make the person who was discriminated against the problem in some way rather than the discrimination and the perpetrator of the discrimination as the problem — those are patterns that we have seen in our research,” said Laura Morgan Roberts, a professor at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and co-editor of the book, "Race, Work, and Leadership."
Not sick

Current and former Google employees who are white say they faced similar treatment from human resources when they spoke up about the company’s racial and gender discrimination issues.

In late 2018, Claire Stapleton, who worked at Google for 12 years, helped organize a walkout to protest how the company’s handled accusations of sexual harassment and assault. The demonstration came after a New York Times investigation detailed how the creator of Android received a $90 million exit package even though the company found that a sexual assault claim against him was credible.

Claire Stapleton, an organizer of the 2018 Google walkout over sexual harassment and misconduct, in New York, November 2019. (Dina Litovsky / Redux)

After organizing the protest, Stapleton said she complained to human resources that her manager had demoted her. She hoped HR would provide a mediator to help find a solution. Instead a human resources counselor told Stapleton to try mindfulness techniques to improve her relationship with her manager, according to Stapleton. Another human resources director recommended she speak with a third director who specializes in employee benefits. That official suggested Stapleton take a medical leave, she said.

“I was raising a retaliation claim and then she said, ‘Oh, but did anyone tell you about medical leave?’ And I said, ‘Yes, I know what medical leave is, but that’s not what I need. I’m not sick.’ And she was like, ‘Oh no, no, no, it’s not like that. We put people on it all the time,'” Stapleton said.

She did not take the medical leave, but resigned instead.

Google says it provides multiple ways for employees to raise concerns and investigates all retaliation reports. “If an employee wants to explore a leave of absence or have a workplace accommodation, Google’s Benefits team will work with the individual on next steps,” Google’s Rodstrom said.

In 2019, another current Google employee, who is white and spoke anonymously because he’s not permitted to speak to the news media, raised concerns about pay disparities between white and Black employees with similar experience levels. He hoped one of his Black colleagues would get a raise. Instead, he was ignored and then told to stop asking about it, he said.

“After months, I was like I can’t even show up to work another day the way they’re dragging me along,” the employee said. “And then basically at the end I said, ‘I need some options,’ and HR said, ‘You can accept severance or you can take a medical leave.'”

On Feb. 5, Margaret Mitchell, the co-lead of Google’s Ethical AI team with Gebru, wrote in a blog post that Gebru “has been treated completely inappropriately, with intense disrespect, and she deserves an apology.” On Feb. 19, Mitchell announced “I’m fired.” Google confirmed Mitchell’s firing to NBC, and said she had violated the company’s code of conduct by removing documents and employee data from Google’s internal system.

Mitchell said in a statement after she was fired, “I tried to use my position to raise concerns to Google about race and gender inequity, and to speak up about Google’s deeply problematic firing of Dr. Gebru. To now be fired has been devastating.”

CORRECTION (March 7, 6 p.m. ET) A previous version of the article misstated what Google human resources advised Timnit Gebru to do after she reported issues with how women were treated at the company. She was advised to seek mental health care, not take medical leave. The article also misstated Margaret Mitchell's job status at Google. Mitchell was a co-leader of the Ethical AI Team at Google with Gebru; she did not work under Gebru.