Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founders, are maintaining a low profile amidst significant antitrust trials, a pattern that experts suggest is consistent with their historical avoidance of federal scrutiny. Google recently faced a notable court loss to Epic Games, threatening its lucrative Android app store business. During this trial, US District Judge James Donato criticized what he termed a “disturbing” companywide effort to destroy evidence.
Another looming threat for Google is the awaited ruling on the Justice Department’s case, alleging the company’s maintenance of an illegal monopoly over online search. The 10-week trial concluded without appearances from Page and Brin, with Justice Department antitrust lawyers questioning current and former executives instead. Critics argue that not calling the founders to the stand was a “tactical mistake,” missing an opportunity to question the reclusive Page.
Despite their absence, insiders assert that Page and Brin remain core decision-makers at Google, influencing important business decisions. Recent personal developments, such as Brin’s high-profile divorce and Page’s reported seclusion in Fiji during the pandemic, highlight their focus on personal lives.
The Justice Department’s antitrust case, the most significant since Microsoft’s trial two decades ago, has received praise, but experts believe Google will likely evade severe consequences. The trial’s outcome, expected in mid-2024, holds consequences for Google, the internet, and the personal fortunes of Brin and Page, who are still major Google shareholders.
Although absent from the trial, signs suggest the founders’ continued involvement in critical company decisions. The New York Times reported their review of Google’s artificial intelligence product strategy, indicating ongoing influence. Brin’s recent listing as a “core contributor” to Google’s AI product, “Gemini,” further underscores their involvement.
The trial’s focus on Google’s search business practices, instead of historical aspects, may explain the founders’ absence, aligning with federal antitrust lawyers’ strategy to build a focused case. Not questioning the founders directly allows a laser-focused case on current practices. The trial, seen as a pivotal antitrust action, underscores the complexities of scrutinizing tech giants in contemporary contexts.
