Connect with us

Published

on

People walk near the Google offices on July 04, 2022 in New York City.

John Smith | View Press | Getty Images

Google‘s parent company Alphabet has stacked its legal team with former Department of Justice employees as it fights two separate antitrust lawsuits from the agency, public profiles show.

Former DOJ employees make up both its in-house team and members of outside counsel firms it employs. The company has hired three former DOJ officials into regulatory roles since May 2022, and one before that in 2021, according to public information including social media profiles. Google also uses four different outside counsel firms loaded with nearly 20 former DOJ officials, many of whom worked in the Antitrust Division at various times.

Such hiring to its internal regulatory team is a reflection of the intense scrutiny Google is facing from governments around the world. It can be a signal that a company anticipates dealing with regulatory challenges in years to come, even if it doesn’t know exactly what form it’ll take yet, according to two former government officials.

“When companies find themselves under intense scrutiny from regulatory authorities, antitrust law or otherwise, they make moves like this,” said Bill Kovacic, a former Federal Trade Commission chair who now teaches antitrust law at George Washington University.

Google now faces two antitrust challenges from the DOJ, both to its search and ad tech businesses, and additional challenges from a slew of state attorneys general. Regulators around the world, including in Europe and Australia, have also presented policy and enforcement hurdles.

Google’s hiring is not surprising for a company under such a microscope, according to Doug Melamed, a former acting assistant attorney general at the DOJ Antitrust Division who’s now a scholar-in-residence at Stanford Law School.

The company had already been fighting one complex antitrust case that would likely require a team of 10 to 15 lawyers alone, according to Melamed, when the Department brought its second antitrust challenge against the company earlier this year.

“They don’t have the capacity to handle a case like that just sitting idle,” Melamed said. “They’ve got to now think about well, what outside lawyers are available that have to have the time and expertise to handle this case? And then, do I have the in-house capability to support it and supervise it?”

The added threat of new legislation targeting Google’s business, and that of other tech firms, looms. In the near term, it appears that a massive lobbying campaign by the industry has successfully delayed the most disruptive reforms. But the possibility of renewed energy around that legislation still hangs over the industry, and a company like Google “can take nothing for granted now,” Kovacic said, adding that’s likely a reason for the company to build out its regulatory forces.

“New entrants and new innovations are driving competition and delivering value for America’s consumers, publishers, and merchants,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement for this story. “We’re proud of our services and we look forward to making our case in court.”

Revolving door hiring

Alphabet now has at least five former DOJ staffers on its legal team, including Google’s director of competition Kevin Yingling, who’s been with the company for more than a decade and worked as a trial attorney at the Department of Justice from 2000 to 2005, according to his LinkedIn.

The company hired Kate Smith as counsel for Alphabet’s regulatory response, investigations and strategy unit in February 2021, according to LinkedIn. Smith was a trial attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Frauds division from September 2015 until January 2021.

In May 2022, according to LinkedIn, Alphabet hired Mike Kass, a former trial attorney in the DOJ’s Civil Fraud section, as its regulatory and litigation counsel for products.

A month later, the company hired Seema Mittal Roper as counsel on its regulatory response team. Mittal Roper worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the DOJ in Maryland from 2013 to 2018, according to LinkedIn.

Most recently, the company hired Jack Mellyn as strategy counsel on its regulatory team. Mellyn was previously an attorney advisor and then acting assistant chief in the DOJ’s competition policy and advocacy section, according to a previously available social media profile.

It’s not clear which employees are working on the specific matters before the DOJ and Kass’ role appears focused outside of antitrust. It’s likely these employees never worked on Google-related matters they’re dealing with now during their time in government, given their dates and areas of previous employment, as well as federal ethics rules that bar certain conflicts.

But experts say this kind of hiring, which is common among businesses faced with regulatory scrutiny, can still be beneficial to a company because of the unique insight, touch or credibility that an ex-government attorney might hold when it comes to their former colleagues.

“There are lots of lawyers out there. But only alumni of an office really understand how that office works,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, which tracks the business ties of executive branch officials. “That means its strengths and weaknesses, that means the tendencies of people in that office. And they can therefore give much more concrete intelligence and better-informed advice to their client.”

Hauser said this may mean the lawyers could advise a client or employer to flood the agency with information rather than comply with a certain document request, knowing that the enforcers don’t have the capacity to deal with it. Or, they might suggest strategies to approach a deposition, knowing the government staffer conducting it.

A lawyer who’s had experience in the government doesn’t bring information about the specific matters of the companies involved, but rather brings a general perspective about how the agency is approaching these kinds of problems,” Melamed said.

Enforcement agencies also often have to trust whether they believe the target of an investigation has complied with its requests. Hauser said the agencies may be more inclined to take the word of their former colleagues, compared to a more removed attorney.

A recent event shows what can happen when that trust is broken. The DOJ last month accused Google of destroying chat messages it should have kept under a litigation hold related to the investigation. The DOJ made the accusation in a legal filing after Epic Games raised the concern in its own antitrust litigation against Google.

A Google spokesperson said in a statement at the time of the DOJ’s filing that they “strongly refute the DOJ’s claims.”

Google also works with outside counsel firms on its antitrust cases, including Axinn, Freshfields, Ropes & Gray and Wilson Sonsini, based on reports, statements and legal filings. Those firms collectively have around 20 former DOJ employees on their staff, many of them working in antitrust. Though these attorneys may not all work on Google matters, the firms themselves often tout the benefit of former government officials in bringing a helpful perspective to clients.

For example, Freshfields says on its website that its “deep bench of former DOJ and FTC trial attorneys gives us unique insight into how the enforcement agencies approach enforcement in general and litigation in particular.”

Kovacic said agency experience is something companies look for in hiring outside firms.

“In deciding who to retain, what law firm to retain or what economic consultancy to retain, they would place a lot of weight on how many former government officials are in those firms,” Kovacic said.

Freshfields attorneys Julie Elmer and Eric Mahr have led Google’s defense against an advertising technology monopolization case brought by a group of states led by Texas, The New York Times reported in 2021. And Bloomberg Law reported this year that Mahr will also lead its defense in the ad tech case brought by the DOJ.

Mahr was director of litigation for the DOJ Antitrust Division from 2015 to 2017, according to the Freshfields site, and Elmer worked as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division from 2015 to 2020, according to her LinkedIn profile.

Revolving door hiring goes both ways between the public and private sectors, with government officials often working for previous employers or clients who become relevant in their work. For example, DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter previously worked for clients including Microsoft and Yelp which have complained of Google’s allegedly anticompetitive behavior.

Ultimately, however, Kanter was cleared to work on cases and investigations involving Google, despite the company’s suggestion that his past work should cast doubt on his ability to be fair in such matters.

The DOJ and Wilson Sonsini declined to comment. The three other firms mentioned did not immediately provide a comment for this story.

Limits for former government employees

There are limits on what former government officials can work on under federal ethics and Bar rules.

For example, the DOJ’s website says that former employees can’t represent someone before the government on an issue involving parties they “personally and substantially” worked on during their time in government. For two years after leaving the Department, a former employee also cannot represent anyone before the government in a matter involving parties they know “was pending under his official responsibility for the last year of government service and in which the U.S. is a party or has a substantial interest.”

And for one year after leaving the agency, former senior employees cannot represent someone before the agency “with the intent to influence” the DOJ on a pending matter or one in which it has an interest.

Personal and substantial work on a matter within government doesn’t depend on the length of time devoted to it, but the role a person played in potentially influencing the outcome or direction, according to Virginia Canter, the chief ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) who previously advised government officials on ethics at agencies including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Treasury Department.

But even if a former government official can’t work on a specific matter they were privy to during their earlier employment, their insight might still be useful to a company.

“You can read about it, but when you’re actually part of dealing with these cases, you know that there are certain factors that are going to either act as mitigating or … that are going to more favorably incline you to bring a case,” Canter said. “It’s just your general knowledge and experience.”

When companies hire former government officials, they may also have the idea that those employees will be viewed more favorably by the current regime.

“Maybe there’s just this general impression that they’re trying to surround themselves with what will be perceived by their former colleagues as the good guys,” Canter hypothesized.

Some might argue that experience could be beneficial to the government in some cases, Canter noted. A former government employee might have a deeper understanding of the importance of compliance or providing certain information to officials, for example, having seen up close what could be at stake if they don’t.

Hauser said it’s unlikely DOJ leadership, especially Kanter, who has made a point to bring more aggressive cases in the tech space and overall, would be overly swayed to view things Google’s way in ongoing matters. But, he said, the impact of former DOJ staff employed by Google could be more influential in an emerging issue, where there’s an opportunity to leave a first impression on senior leadership about it.

The degree of this kind of influence may be relatively small on the level of an individual case, Hauser said, but for a company under such a high degree of regulatory scrutiny, it could add up.

“You’re talking about billions and billions of dollars of potential implications for Google’s net worth,” Hauser said. “Relatively small changes in the scope of the investigation, the timeframe of the investigation, can be very big, even if they don’t go to the overall question of will there be any lawsuits by the Justice Department against Google.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

WATCH: How US antitrust law works, and what it means for Big Tech

The evolution of US antitrust law

Continue Reading

Technology

Elon Musk ratchets up attacks on Navarro as Tesla shares slump for fourth day

Published

on

By

Elon Musk ratchets up attacks on Navarro as Tesla shares slump for fourth day

Elon Musk (L), and Peter Navarro (R).

Reuters

As Tesla shares plummeted for a fourth straight day, CEO Elon Musk let loose on President Donald Trump’s top trade advisor Peter Navarro.

Musk, the world’s richest person, started going after Navarro over the weekend, posting on X that a “PhD in econ from Harvard is a bad thing, not a good thing,” a reference to Navarro’s degree. Whatever subtlety remained at the beginning of the week has since vanished.

On Tuesday, Musk wrote that “Navarro is truly a moron,” noting that his comments about Tesla being a “car assembler,” as much are “demonstrably false.” Musk called Navarro “dumber than a sack of bricks,” before later apologizing to bricks. Musk also called Navarro “dangerously dumb.”

Musk’s attacks on Navarro represent the most public spat between members of President Trump’s inner circle since the term began in January, and show that the steep tariffs announced last week on more than 180 countries and territories don’t have universal approval in the administration.

When asked about the feud in a briefing on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “Look, these are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade and on tariffs.”

“Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue,” she said.

For Musk, whose younger brother Kimbal — a restaurant owner, entrepreneur and Tesla board member — has joined in on the action, the name-calling appears to be tied to business conditions.

Tesla’s stock is down 22% in the past four trading sessions and 45% for the year. Tesla has lost more tha $585 billion in value since the calendar turned, equaling tens of billions of dollars in paper losses for Musk, who is also CEO of SpaceX and the owner of xAI and social network X.

Even before President Trump detailed his plan for widespread tariffs, he’d already placed a 25% tariff on vehicles not assembled in the U.S. Many analysts said Tesla could withstand those tariffs better than competitors because its vehicles sold in the U.S. are assembled domestically.

But the company’s production costs are poised to increase because of the tariffs on materials and parts from foreign suppliers. Canada and Mexico are among the leading sources of U.S. steel imports, and Canada is the nation’s largest supplier of aluminum, while China and Mexico are home to major suppliers of printed circuit boards to the automotive industry.

At a recent an event hosted by right-wing Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, Musk said, “Both Europe and the United States should move, ideally, in my view, to a zero-tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America.”

Musk, whose view on trade relations with Europe stands in stark contrast to the policies implemented by the president, has a vested interest in the region. Tesla has a large car factory outside of Berlin, and the European Commission previously turned to SpaceX for launches.

Even before the tariffs, Tesla’s business was faltering. Last week, the company reported a 13% year-over-year decline in first-quarter deliveries, missing analysts’ estimates. That report that landed days after Tesla’s stock price wrapped up its worst quarter since 2022.

Musk, who spent roughly $290 billion to help return Trump to the White House, is now leading the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which has slashed costs, eliminated regulations and cut tens of thousands of federal jobs. In the first quarter, Tesla was hit with waves of protests, boycotts and some criminal activity that targeted vehicles and facilities in response to Musk’s political rhetoric and his work in the White House.

WATCH: Brad Gerstner explains his Tesla position

Brad Gerstner explains his Tesla position

Continue Reading

Technology

Apple’s 4-day slide puts Microsoft back on top as most valuable company

Published

on

By

Apple's 4-day slide puts Microsoft back on top as most valuable company

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, laughs as he attends a session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 23, 2020.

Denis Balibouse | Reuters

Apple‘s 23% plunge over the past four trading sessions has again turned Microsoft into the world’s most valuable public company.

As of Tuesday’s close, Microsoft is worth $2.64 trillion, while Apple’s market cap stands at $2.59 trillion.

While the market broadly is getting hammered by President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff plan, Apple is getting hit the hardest among tech’s megacap companies due to the iPhone maker’s reliance on China.

The Nasdaq is down 13% over the past four trading days, as President Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on imports from more than 100 countries has sparked fears of a recession brought on by rising prices. UBS analysts on Monday predicted that the price of the iPhone 16 Pro Max could jump as much as $350 in the U.S.

Both Apple and Microsoft, along with chipmaker Nvidia, were previously valued at upward of $3 trillion before the recent sell-off.

In January, Microsoft issued disappointing revenue guidance. Nevertheless, last week, as Jefferies analysts reduced their price targets on many software stocks, they wrote Microsoft was among the “companies who we view as more insulated” from tariff uncertainty.

Microsoft also had the highest market capitalization of any public company in early 2024, but Apple soon reclaimed the title.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Tech stocks struggle with intraday gains amid tariff uncertainty

Continue Reading

Technology

Tech, semiconductor stocks bounce on tariff optimism, Nvidia jumps 7%

Published

on

By

Tech, semiconductor stocks bounce on tariff optimism, Nvidia jumps 7%

Technology stocks bounced Tuesday after three rocky trading sessions, spurred by rising optimism that President Donald Trump could potentially negotiate tariff deals with world leaders.

Nvidia led the Magnificent Seven group’s gains, rallying about 7%. Meta Platforms, Amazon, Tesla, Apple and Microsoft jumped at least 4% each. Alphabet rose about 3%.

The sector is coming off a wild trading session after speculation that the White House could potentially delay tariffs fueled volatile swings. Alphabet, Meta Platforms, Amazon and Nvidia finished higher, while Apple, Microsoft and Tesla posted losses.

Trump’s wide-sweeping tariff plans have sparked violent turbulence over the last three trading sessions. Trading volume on Monday hit its highest in nearly two decades. Technology stocks gyrated after the Nasdaq Composite posted its worst week in five years and the Magnificent Seven group lost $1.8 trillion in market value over two trading sessions.

Semiconductor stocks also rebounded Tuesday, with the VanEck Semiconductor ETF jumping more than 5% to build on a more than 2% gain from the previous session. Advanced Micro Devices, Lam Research and Micron Technology jumped about 6%.

Chipmakers were excluded from the recent tariffs, but have come under pressure on worries that higher duties could diminish demand for products they are used in and slow the economy. The sector is also expected to see tariffs further down the road.

Elsewhere, Broadcom surged 9% after announcing a $10 billion share buyback plan through the end of the year. Marvell Technology also bounced more than 9% after agreeing to sell its auto ethernet business for $2.5 billion in cash to Infineon Technologies.

WATCH: Tariff volatility erases majority of AI stock gains

Continue Reading

Trending