Google Reverses Gag Order on Antitrust Case After Union Settlement

Google has lifted a controversial internal policy that previously barred employees from discussing the company’s landmark antitrust case, following a settlement with the Alphabet Workers Union, according to New York Times.

The change comes after mounting criticism over Google’s approach to employee speech, especially after the company lost a high-profile antitrust trial related to its dominance in the search market. Initially, the tech giant instructed staff not to discuss the case internally or externally—a stance that sparked a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from the union representing some Google employees and contractors.

As part of the settlement overseen by the NLRB, Google told its workforce that it would no longer enforce overly broad restrictions on communication about the lawsuit’s potential impact on their employment conditions. The agreement affirms that workers are free to speak about how legal proceedings might affect their jobs, per New York Times.

The original directive came from Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs, who emphasized in a 2020 internal memo that employees should not “speculate on legal issues,” urging them instead to focus on their work. He reiterated this message in 2023 when the trial began and again after the company’s defeat in August. The NLRB complaint specifically addressed this last communication.

Read more: Google Agrees to Pay $100 Million to Settle Long-Running Ad Dispute

The company’s revised stance marks a rare retreat from its long-standing culture of internal secrecy. According to New York Times, Google has long maintained strict controls over what employees can say, especially when it comes to legal matters. The recent settlement undermines that strategy, which aimed to keep employees focused and avoid disruptions during the ongoing legal battle.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, later attempted to clarify that the earlier statements were meant to prevent employees from speaking on behalf of the company publicly, not to restrict all internal discussions. “To avoid lengthy litigation, we agreed to remind employees that they have the right to talk about their employment,” she stated, noting that such rights have always existed within the organization.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has pushed for sweeping remedies in the case, including potentially forcing Google to divest assets such as Chrome, its widely-used web browser. The final decision on any penalties or structural changes rests with federal judge Amit P. Mehta, who is expected to rule by August.

Source: New York Times