Google CEO Sundar Pichai once warned top executives that the company risked bad optics by pushing for its search engine to be the only option on Apples browser, according to emails submitted in the Justice Departments landmark antitrust trial.
Pichai outlined his concerns in emails sent in 2007 to Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin as well as other company leaders.
Pichai, who was heading up the team responsible for Googles Chrome browser, argued that the company should nudge Apple to allow customers to select their preferred search engine.
I know we are insisting on default, but at the same time I think we should encourage them to have Yahoo as a choice in the pull down or some other easy option, Pichai said in the email, according to Bloomberg.
I dont think it is a good user experience nor the optics is great for us to be the only provider in the browser, Pichai added.
Pichais past remarks could lend support to the Justice Departments key argument in the once-in-a-generation trial. The feds say Google pays more than $10 billion per year to smartphone makers like Apple and mobile carriers to secure default status on devices and block rivals from gaining market share.
Google has countered the argument by stating that customers choose its search engine because it is the best product of its kind. The Big Tech firms lawyers have also downplayed the importance of default status by asserting customers can change their search engine with just a few clicks.
On Tuesday, Justice Department attorneys also questioned Google executive Joan Braddi, who played a key role in negotiating the companys search deals with Apple and was included in Pichais messages.
Braddi testified that Apple repeatedly pushed for more flexibility on search engine defaults through revised terms for the Google deal including a 2014 agreement that cleared Apple to implement rivals’ search products in other countries.
When asked if Google currently pays a significant amount of money to Apple through the revenue-sharing deal, Braddi said: It wasnt always, but today, yes, according to Bloomberg.
Last week, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, whose company operates the rival Bing search engine, said the entire notion that consumers have a choice in the online search market is completely bogus due to Googles dominant hold on the market.
Google has a roughly 90% market share in online search, easily outpacing that of competitors such as Microsofts Bing and the privacy-focused DuckDuckGo.
Search advertising generated $42.6 billion in quarterly revenue, according to its latest earnings report in July — bucking a trend that has seen a slowdown in rivals Meta and Snap, Bloomberg reported.
Googles long-term partnership with Apple has been a central focus during the antitrust trial, which is roughly halfway through its expected 10-week run time.
Google has been the default search engine for Apples Safari browser since 2002. The two companies most recently renegotiated the deal in 2021.
Longtime Apple executive Eddy Cue, the companys senior vice president of services, previously defended the deal on the witness stand.
Cue told the court that Apple selected Google because there certainly wasnt a valid alternative we would have gone to at the time. He added that Apple hasnt developed its own search engine due to the quality of Googles product.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.