For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a jury trial.<p>They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less than $1 million, so there's a chance this is a very small check from Google's perspective.<p>Polling the jury pool is not an uncommon practice in high-stakes trials, and I assume that Google has run a poll of the jury pool and found them hostile enough that they are willing to concede to 7-8 figures to avoid a jury getting involved in the decision whether to break Google up.
> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it.<p>wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works?<p>Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions.<p>Gotta admire the balls on the google lawyers though.
Matt Stoller is tracking this:
<a href="https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-google-tries-to" rel="nofollow">https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-google-...</a>
(this is his BIG newsletter, you need to pay for further details)
Google's Memo ISO Motion to Dismiss:<p><a href="https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.624.0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...</a>
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2016 case that an offer for “complete relief” did not wipe out a class-action claim. But Google argued its payment is different, because it submitted an actual check and not merely an offer.<p>Checks aren't cash, right? They can bounce when you cash them. So how is it different?
>The Justice Department filed the case last year with Virginia and other states, alleging Google was stifling competition for advertising technology. The government has said Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite.<p>Google should be broken up.
> The company said the government has said the case is “highly technical” and “outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors.”<p>Ah yes, these matters are far too complex for the lowly civilian jury to assess. I mean, can they even invert a binary tree?<p>Much easier to just do away with this whole 'trial' thing. No need to bother the simpletons by entering all these complicated documents (evidence) into the public record.<p>Wonder if Boeing will try the same thing.
I assume if this does get a jury trial, the cheque will affect the selection pool. Since anyone who's heard about google doing this would probably take it poorly.
In all seriousness:<p>> "Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it."<p>Who, exactly, the fuck do they think they are?
In other antritrust litigation Google has argued that people love the company, that is why they use it and that is why it has remained #1. If this is true, then why is Google so afraid of a jury. Would it not be comprised of Google supporters.<p>That Google just thinks paying people off will solve every one of its problems, whether its competitors or plaintiffs, perhaps will play into the government's narrative.<p>Google does not win on the merits.