Federal Judge Seeks Clarity on Roles and Pay for Oversight Panel in Google Antitrust Case

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta scheduled a hearing after both sides disclosed in a joint filing that they remain at odds over the expected workload and compensation for the five-member Technical Committee. Google is responsible for covering the panel’s costs.

Per a statement in a Feb. 6 joint status report, the Justice Department and a coalition of states led by Colorado argued that committee members should serve in full-time roles and receive salaries comparable to senior Silicon Valley executives. Google, however, maintained that the positions should be part time, with compensation more in line with expert witnesses who have participated in the high-profile antitrust proceedings.

The dispute comes after Judge Mehta approved the appointment of three members to the standing committee on Jan. 21. According to a statement filed with the court, the Justice Department recommended Tammy Savage to serve as both a member and chair of the panel. The Colorado-led state coalition selected Gerry Campbell, while Google chose Professor John Abowd. The committee will recommend two additional members for the judge’s approval.

During Friday’s hearing, Mehta sought clarification on whether the appointed members had agreed to the government’s proposal that they serve three-year terms, with the possibility of renewal if necessary.

We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

Add as Preferred Source

John Sallett of the Colorado Department of Law, representing the state coalition, told the court that the committee members were prepared to continue their work for as long as required. “This is a task they want to see to completion,” Sallett said.

Related: Google Under New EU Scrutiny Over Alleged Search Ad Price Manipulation

Google’s attorney, John Schmidtlein of Williams & Connolly, countered that a one-year term would be more appropriate, arguing that the most substantial work would likely take place during the initial year of the committee’s operation. Judge Mehta questioned whether annual terms would effectively trigger compensation negotiations less than a year into the panel’s work. Schmidtlein acknowledged the concern but emphasized Google’s interest in maintaining flexibility and revisiting compensation if the committee’s workload decreases after the first year.

The Technical Committee is expected to play a central role in implementing remedies by reviewing and approving “Qualified Competitors” seeking access to Google’s data resources. The company has previously raised concerns about how such access would be granted and monitored.

Justice Department attorney David Dahlquist informed the court that several potential competitors have already approached the government about obtaining access to Google’s data, underscoring the immediate relevance of the panel’s responsibilities, according to a statement made during the hearing.

The oversight structure echoes the framework established in the landmark antitrust case against Microsoft, in which a similar technical committee was formed to oversee compliance with court-ordered remedies related to the company’s web browser monopoly.

Source: Court House News