Just how close are Obama and Google? You won’t believe the answer

Watchdog seeks probe into Federal Trade Commission


An ethics watchdog thinks that the FTC may have misled Congress about how it protected Google, and highlights how the White House went into panic mode to limit the damage to the giant ad slinger over a newspaper report last year.

Last March, Google learned that the Wall Street Journal was about to publish details of how the Federal Trade Commission shut down an investigation into Google – contradicting some of the recommendations of its own investigators. The information had arrived by accident: a confidential report had been mistakenly included in a huge bundle of documents passed to the Journal, with every other page redacted.

The half-readable report nevertheless showed that staff had conducted an investigation of Google’s behaviour, similar to the one conducted by the EU*, which began in 2010. The report concluded Google was anti-competitive and recommended the FTC press charges.

FTC staff concluded that Google had violated the Sherman antitrust act in three areas, and continuing its behaviour would have “lasting negative effects on consumer welfare.” But their recommendations were overruled by the FTC’s high priesthood, the Commissioners, who are political appointees. Instead they shut down the probe and allowed Google to make some modest “voluntary” pledges, saying at the time these would deliver “more relief for American consumers faster than any other option.”

On March 18 last year, with publication imminent, a private meeting was hastily arranged between President Obama and Google chairman Eric Schmidt. The meeting was scheduled at 2:11pm for a meeting 24 hours later, on March 19. The meeting and the publication of the WSJ’s explosive story took place the next day.

Schmidt and Google lobbyist Johanna Shelton met three more times in the next six days. Shelton emailed the FTC's head of staff complaining that the FTC’s silence on the WSJ story left her “deeply troubled” and “puzzled”. The email was among several which emerged in response to a public records request.

“A public statement standing by the FTC’s ability to make a final decision after assessing differing internal views would go far in the international space to restore the reputation of the FTC, especially on due process,” Shelton wrote (PDF, page 11 of 119).

Two days later, the FTC issued a statement echoing Shelton’s words, and apologised for the accidental disclosure to the WSJ that had embarrassed Google.

Amazingly, according to the documents, FTC chair Edith Ramirez, an Obama appointee, then shared a draft speech she was due to make in Germany that month with Google’s general counsel Kent Walker and Google’s European director of competition, Julia Holtz, before she made the speech.

“Several aspects of this timeline should be of concern to anyone who believes that law enforcement should be free from influence by the White House or one of its principal corporate supporters,” said ethics watchdog the National Legal and Policy Center.

“It appears that FTC officials operate much like employees of Google, and that Google calls the shots about its own oversight. This is the most extreme example of ‘regulatory capture’ we have seen in Washington in recent years,” it claims.

Ramirez’s account of these events a year ago before Congress is now also under scrutiny.

Salon notes that to counter the FTC investigation, Google turned to academic Joshua Wright, “the author of many pro-Google studies”, showering his department at George Mason University with $762,000 in donations. Wright was later appointed an FTC commissioner. (He resigned from the FTC last year.)

In 2010, the FTC approved Google’s acquisition of the No.1 mobile advertiser Admob, without conditions.

The FTC isn’t the only agency with close ties to Google. Telco watchdog the FCC succumbed to intense White House pressure to reclassify internet services as Title II services, designed to regulate the Bell telephone monopoly in the 1930s, which Congress had intended to be kept away from internet companies. The FCC was created as an independent agency but for now seemingly allows Google to control regulation via proxy.

Key former Googlers in the Obama administration include Megan Smith – “Chief Technology Officer” and Assistant to the President (Google 2003-2014), her deputy Alex MacGillivray (Google 2003-2009), Michelle Lee, head of the patents office (Google 2003-2012), and the top two antitrust officers. Antitrust chief and her deputy Renata Hesse and David Gelfand had key roles working for Google at external firms. ®

* The FTC investigation covered the same ground as the EU's investigation into search behaviour, the effects of which are detailed here.

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Abortion rights: US senators seek ban on sale of health location data
    With Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, privacy is key

    A group of senators wants to make it illegal for data brokers to sell sensitive location and health information of individuals' medical treatment.

    A bill filed this week by five senators, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), comes in anticipation the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling that could overturn the 49-year-old Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing access to abortion for women in the US.

    The worry is that if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade – as is anticipated following the leak in May of a majority draft ruling authored by Justice Samuel Alito – such sensitive data can be used against women.

    Continue reading
  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • I was fired for blowing the whistle on cult's status in Google unit, says contractor
    The internet giant, a doomsday religious sect, and a lawsuit in Silicon Valley

    A former Google video producer has sued the internet giant alleging he was unfairly fired for blowing the whistle on a religious sect that had all but taken over his business unit. 

    The lawsuit demands a jury trial and financial restitution for "religious discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation and related causes of action." It alleges Peter Lubbers, director of the Google Developer Studio (GDS) film group in which 34-year-old plaintiff Kevin Lloyd worked, is not only a member of The Fellowship of Friends, the exec was influential in growing the studio into a team that, in essence, funneled money back to the fellowship.

    In his complaint [PDF], filed in a California Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd lays down a case that he was fired for expressing concerns over the fellowship's influence at Google, specifically in the GDS. When these concerns were reported to a manager, Lloyd was told to drop the issue or risk losing his job, it is claimed. 

    Continue reading
  • End of the road for biz living off free G Suite legacy edition
    Firms accustomed to freebies miffed that web giant's largess doesn't last

    After offering free G Suite apps for more than a decade, Google next week plans to discontinue its legacy service – which hasn't been offered to new customers since 2012 – and force business users to transition to a paid subscription for the service's successor, Google Workspace.

    "For businesses, the G Suite legacy free edition will no longer be available after June 27, 2022," Google explains in its support document. "Your account will be automatically transitioned to a paid Google Workspace subscription where we continue to deliver new capabilities to help businesses transform the way they work."

    Small business owners who have relied on the G Suite legacy free edition aren't thrilled that they will have to pay for Workspace or migrate to a rival like Microsoft, which happens to be actively encouraging defectors. As noted by The New York Times on Monday, the approaching deadline has elicited complaints from small firms that bet on Google's cloud productivity apps in the 2006-2012 period and have enjoyed the lack of billing since then.

    Continue reading
  • UK competition watchdog seeks to make mobile browsers, cloud gaming and payments more competitive
    Investigation could help end WebKit monoculture on iOS devices

    The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on Friday said it intends to launch an investigation of Apple's and Google's market power with respect to mobile browsers and cloud gaming, and to take enforcement action against Google for its app store payment practices.

    "When it comes to how people use mobile phones, Apple and Google hold all the cards," said Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, in a statement. "As good as many of their services and products are, their strong grip on mobile ecosystems allows them to shut out competitors, holding back the British tech sector and limiting choice."

    The decision to open a formal investigation follows the CMA's year-long study of the mobile ecosystem. The competition watchdog's findings have been published in a report that concludes Apple and Google have a duopoly that limits competition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022