Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
reuters.com
reuters.com
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.
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.
Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?
Incidentally, I have been somewhat involved in a few court cases, and the general advice I have been told is to explain [extremely technical topic] at a 3rd grade level if you want a jury to understand.
By the way, for people who want to argue that people are getting stupider, apparently it was a 6th grade level 30 years ago.
Hope springs eternal...
Financial instruments and technology have changed a bit over time. Previously there may have been better analogues to compare things without stretching reality too much.
The rule here, the Seventh Amendment, confers a right to a jury trial when one would have been required under English common law at the time the seventh amendment was written. Roughly speaking, in the English system, cases involving monetary damages were handled in courts of law with juries. Cases that involved injunctive relief (orders to do or not do something) were handled in courts of equity with decisions made by judges.
How is it beneficial to not require extra public burden to complete cases when the issues justifying that burden are resolved without trial?
Or how is it beneficial that issues get resolved without trial?
Because I think both have clear benefits in general.
Agreeing that there's no question of facts speeds the whole process along quite a bit. There's no need for witness testimony, it can all be managed in hearings and with breifings.
Where Google accepts paying the damages but does not plead or admit guilt.
(You can do the same thing if you get a speeding ticket. And since you accept the consequences, no reason to go to trial.)
Basically anything is legally possible with enough of them, or just claiming to have enough of them.
Ole Donny T. wasn’t really exaggerating when he said that he could shoot a man dead in broad daylight on Fifth Ave. and get away with it.
wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works?
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.
Gotta admire the balls on the google lawyers though.
Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine and don't even have to see the judge?
The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
> In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
If Google says "yep, we're not disputing that we owe the federal govt $1 million, here's a cheque for that amount", their argument is that the "value in controversy" is now $0. Since $0 is less than $20, that clause doesn't apply.
I'd like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the odds this'll work, though.
The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty-dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20 in 1800 is equivalent to $359 in 2023
It’s just not. You don’t get to set your own damages amount in advance of a trial and you certainly don’t get dictate random conditions on modifying legal process to government when you do.
Boeing then failed to comply with the agreement and allegedly crimed again within the term of their deferred prosecution agreement in the door plug incident. This all running concurrently with the outgoing CEO getting a $33M bonus.
So. Yeah.
Did I interpreted that correctly, did they bribe the DoJ lawyer?
https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
Checks aren't cash, right? They can bounce when you cash them. So how is it different?
Google should be broken up.
Ah yes, these matters are far too complex for the lowly civilian jury to assess. I mean, can they even invert a binary tree?
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.
Wonder if Boeing will try the same thing.
This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If you think you're going to lose (at anything), you want to do so as soon as possible to minimize costs and risks. Works for chess and wars too.
If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?
(The filing linked to from the article claims that this kind of trial has never gone to a jury in the past, so it really is not some kind of standard operating procedure.)
It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort.
> and that they're not trying to game the system on the other.
We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gaming" the system. It's an attempt to prevent the usual workarounds from working.
I'm sorry, I just realized that was actually a miscommunication on my part. I phrased it extremely poorly in retrospect (your reading was entirely reasonable), but what I had in mind when I wrote "avoiding a jury trial" wasn't Google's avoidance of the jury trial in this case, but the government's avoidance of a jury trial in general. (i.e. the constant willingness to have settlements/plea bargains/etc. before a case ever goes to a jury trial.)
Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a damages claim that’s tangential to its case to get in front of a jury on a technicality. And Google invoked a different technicality to get out from a jury trial. Live by the sword die by the sword.
And whether any of this helps or hurts the government’s chances against Google is entirely irrelevant.
The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the decision is with the judge in both scenarios: https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overtur...
In this particular case, the decision of whether there was an antitrust violation at all would be made by the jury if damages are involved, but by the judge if no damages are involved. Even though the judge will make the final decision on equitable remedies (whether to break up Google), the jury’s verdict is binding on anything the judge subsequently does. The judge isn’t allowed to reach a decision that contradicts the jury on any issue that the jury explicitly or implicitly decided.
Who defines this "reasonable jury" thing? And why do judges get to opine on it?
If the jury shits on your case, it's called nullification, and it's working as designed. If the jury rakes you over a bed of coals, you have one safety valve in that the judge can tamp down on things to mitigate cruel and otherwise unusual awards as far as I understand it, but even with that, there's usually a statutory aspect to things I thought. E.g. ...fines no greater than type language.
In theory, its an “objective standard"; in practice, that mrans the highest court hearing the case ultimately decides.
> And why do judges get to opine on it?
Because its a matter of whether a s a matter of law the vedict is justified. (It's also a due process issue and equal protection issue, preventing a party from beinf deprived of property without basis in law or under standards not applied to other similarly situated parties.)
> If the jury shits on your case, it's called nullification
Nullification exists solely in criminal trials, and only in the direction of acquittals. It doesn't apply for criminal convictions or any civil cases result.
> If the jury rakes you over a bed of coals, you have one safety valve in that the judge can tamp down on things to mitigate cruel and otherwise unusual awards as far as I understand it,
Your understanding is incorrect. The protection against cruel and unusual punishments is a protection against the law providing punishments which would meet that standard, whether in general or as specifically applied to you. It is separate and in addition to protection that any detriment the government imposes on you must be both justified by the law and a consistent with its equal application.
That seems more than fair: The illegal scheme in dispute is apparently only worth $1M on Google’s side, but causing mid to high billions in externalities.
Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit".
"Do no evil"
(This is more of a cynic, generalised comment about Google and companies in the same position abusing their power than directly specific to this case. And yes, I was around from the start when they "did no evil"; it's just depressing.)
((1: According to https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ ))
In this case the payment is part of the judicial process, and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it clearly isn't a bribe.
Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?
> Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.
Right. This is Google's synopsis of Google's interpretation of DoJ's estimated figures.
Nothing here indicates to a specific amount; mostly it indicates ranges of figures.
The entire legal play we're discussing hinges on the check matching a specific DoJ figure - a figure which doesn't seem to exist.
Twisting the words around to fit your argument on the other hand is not convincing.
In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with the expectation that Charlie (the judge in the case) will be forced to do something in response to the payment. Bob is in court with Alice to (ostensibly) get this payment as well as a few other things. Bob and Charlie here have no relationship. Nothing about this is bribery.
If this is a bribe, then paying your parking tickets is a bribe. If this is a bribe, buying something from an electronics store with the expectation that you can download the user manual from the manufacturer's website is a bribe.
What Google is doing is changing the legal process - The govt wants a jury trial, Google is saying "here's some money, now no more jury trial." It seems more than a bit different, at least to my non-lawyer eyes.
Every action you take in a legal process is a "change" of that legal process. At issue here is whether the plaintiff/claimant can demand a jury trial. Juries decide facts, and judges decide the law. By giving up the money, Google is effectively saying they won't be contesting the facts of the case. That means no need for a jury.
Still in the same systems the same rules, same procedures.
It's not like they went outside the legal system.
> "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."
Who, exactly, the fuck do they think they are?
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.
Google does not win on the merits.
Google admits damages: Bad bad bad
Lol I don't think they're trying to make you happy.