Google stacks its legal team with former DOJ employees as it faces antitrust cases
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.”
WATCH: How US antitrust law works, and what it means for Big Tech
Technology
A ‘seismic’ Nvidia shift, AI chip shortages and how it’s threatening to hike gadget prices
The logo of an Apple Store is seen reflected on the glass exterior of a Samsung flagship store in Shanghai, China Monday, Oct. 20, 2025.
Wang Gang | Feature China | Future Publishing | Getty Images
The cost of your smartphone might rise, analysts are warning, as the AI boom clogs up supply chains and a recent change by Nvidia to its products could make it worse.
AI data centers, on which tech giants globally are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, require chips from suppliers, like Nvidia, which relies on many different components and companies to create its coveted graphics processing units.
But other companies like AMD, the hyperscalers like Google and Microsoft, and other component suppliers all rely on this supply chain.
Many parts of the supply chain can’t keep up with demand, and it’s slowing down components that are critical for some of the world’s most popular consumer electronics. Those components are seeing huge spikes in prices, threatening price rises for the end product and could even lead to shortages of some devices.
“We see the rapid increase in demand for AI in data centers driving bottlenecks in many areas,” Peter Hanbury, partner in the technology practice at Bain & Company, told CNBC.
Where is the supply chain clogged?
One of the starkest assessments came from Alibaba CEO Eddie Wu, CEO of Chinese tech giant Alibaba.
Wu, whose company is building its own AI infrastructure and designs its own chips, said last week that there are shortages across semiconductor manufacturers, memory chips and storage devices like hard drives.
“There is a situation of undersupply,” Wu said, adding that the “supply side is going to be a relatively large bottleneck.” He added this could last two to three years.
Bain and Co.’s Hanbury said there are shortages of hard disk drives, or HDDs, which store data. HDDs are used in the data center. These are preferred by hyperscalers,: big companies like Microsoft and Google. But, with HDDs at capacity, these firms have shifted to using solid-state drives, or SSDs, another type of storage device.
However, these SSDs are key components for consumer electronics.
The other big focus is on a type of chip under the umbrella of memory called dynamic random-access memory or DRAM. Nvidia’s chips use high-bandwidth memory which is a type of chip that stacks multiple DRAM semiconductors.
Memory prices have surged as a result of the huge demand and lack of supply. Counterpoint Research said it expects memory prices to rise 30% in the fourth quarter of this year and another 20% in early 2026. Even small imbalances in supply and demand can have major knock on effects on memory pricing. And because of the demand for HBM and GPUs, chipmakers are prioritizing these over other types of semiconductors.
“DRAM is certainly a bottleneck as AI investments continue to feed the imbalance between demand and supply with HBM for AI being prioritized by chipmakers,” MS Hwang, research director at Counterpoint Research, told CNBC.
“Imbalances of 1-2% can trigger sharp price increases and we’re seeing that figure hitting 3% levels at the moment – this is very significant.”
Why are there issues?
Building up capacity in various areas of the semiconductor supply chain can be capital-intensive. And it’s an industry that’s known to be risk-averse and did not add the capacity necessary to meet the projections provided by key industry players, Bain & Co.’s Hanbur said.
“The direct cause of the shortage is the rapid increase in demand for data center chips,” Hanbury said.
“Basically, the suppliers worried the market was too optimistic and they did not want to overbuild very expensive capacity so they did not build to the estimates provided by their customers. Now, the suppliers need to add capacity quickly but as we know, it takes 2-3 years to add semiconductor manufacturing fabs.”
Nvidia at the center
A lot of attention is on Nvidia given it dominates when it comes to the chips that are being put into AI data centers.
It is a huge customer of high bandwidth memory, for example. And its products are manufactured by TSMC which also has other major customers like Apple.
But analysts are focused on a change Nvidia has made to its products that has the potential to add major pressure to consumer electronics supply chains. The U.S. giant is increasingly shifting toward using a type of memory in its products called Low-Power Double Data Rate (LPDDR). This is seen as more power efficient than the previous Double Data Rate, or DDR memory.
The problem is, Nvidia is increasingly using the latest generation of LPDDR memory, which is also used by high-end consumer electronics makers such as Samsung and Apple.
Typically, the industry would just be dealing with demand for this product from a handful of big electronics players. But now Nvidia, which has huge scale, is entering the mix.
“We also see a bigger risk on the horizon is with advanced memory as Nvidia’s recent pivot to LPDDR means they’re a customer on the scale of a major smartphone maker — a seismic shift for the supply chain which can’t easily absorb this scale of demand,” Hwang from Counterpoint Research said.
How AI boom is impacting consumer electronics
Here’s the link between all of this.
From chip manufacturers like TSMC, Intel and Samsung, there is only so much capacity. If there is huge demand for certain types of chips, then these companies will prioritize those, especially from their larger customers. That can lead to shortages of other types of semiconductors elsewhere.
Memory chips, in particular DRAM which has seen prices shoot up, is of particular concern because it’s used in so many devices from smartphones to laptops. And this could lead to price rises in the world’s favorite electronics.
DRAM and storage represent around 10% to 25% of the bill of materials for a typical PC or smartphone, according to Hanbury of Bain & Co. A price increase of 20% to 30% in these components would increase the total bill of materials costs by 5% to 10%.
“In terms of timing, the impact will likely start shortly as component costs are already increasing and likely accelerate into next year,” Hanbury said.
On top of this, there is now demand from players involved in AI data centers like Nvidia, for components that would have typically been used for consumer devices such as LPDDR which adds more demand to a supply constrained market.
If electronics firms can’t get their hands on the components needed for their devices because they’re in short supply or going toward AI data centers, then there could be shortages of the world’s most popular gadgets.
“Beyond the rise in cost there’s a second issue and that’s the inability to secure enough components, which constrains the production of electronic devices,” Counterpoint Research’s Hwang said.
What are tech firms saying?
A number of electronics companies have warned about the impact they are seeing from all of this.
Xiaomi, the third-biggest smartphone vendor globally, said it expects that consumers will see “a sizeable rise in product retail prices,” according to a Reuters reported this month.
Jeff Clark, chief operating officer at Dell, this month said the price rises of components is “unprecedented.”
“We have not seen costs move at the rate that we’ve seen,” Clark said on an earnings call, adding that the pressure is seen across various types of memory chips and storage hard drives.
The unintended consequences
The AI infrastructure players are using similar chips to those being used in consumer electronics. These are often some of the more advanced semiconductors on the market.
But there are legacy chips which are manufactured by the same companies that the AI market is relying on. As these manufacturers shift attention to serving their AI customers, there could be unintended consequences for other industries.
“For example, many other markets depend on the same underlying semiconductor manufacturing capabilities as the data center market” including automobiles, industrials and aerospace and defense, which “will likely see some impact from these price increases as well,” Hanbury said.
Technology
Samsung launches its first multi-folding phone as competition from Chinese brands intensifies
Technology
Nvidia CEO to Cramer: Synopsys deal is ‘culmination of everything I showed you’ over the years
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024