“We tried to find common ground to make progress,” he said of the negotiation.
Pichai’s testimony stood in contrast to the Justice Department’s characterization of Google as calling the shots with device manufacturers and demanding they set Google search as the default if they wanted to enjoy a share of search ad revenue.
Pichai is the third witness in Google’s defense, which began Thursday. Earlier, the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general spent six weeks making their case that Google has broken federal monopoly law in maintaining its 90 percent market share in the search and search advertising markets.
The Justice Department is arguing that Google illegally maintained a search monopoly by paying billions of dollars a year for its search engine to be the default on iPhones and other electronic devices. Prosecutors say consumers have been hurt by fewer options, degraded service, and higher advertising costs.
Evidence introduced in court on Friday showed Google spent $26.3 billion in 2021 on “traffic acquisition costs,” a category that encompasses its payments to companies like Apple for search defaults. Before the trial, Google and its partners had rarely talked publicly about these transactions.
Google is arguing that it dominates the search market simply because it produces the best product.
“This court cannot intervene in the market and say, ‘Google, you’re not allowed to compete,’” Google’s lead litigator John Schmidtlein said in his opening statement.
Last week, Google’s attorneys called its search senior vice president Prabhakar Raghavan to testify, with Raghavan saying the company felt real competitive threat from other companies.
Judge Amit P. Mehta is expected to make a judgment next year.
Pichai began his testimony Monday by recalling his childhood in Chennai, India. He said his family did not get a rotary telephone until he was 12 and that it changed every facet of their lives. After studying at Stanford and a stint at the consultancy McKinsey, Pichai joined Google in 2004 as a product manager for Google Toolbar and became head of all the company’s products and services in 2014, and CEO in 2015.
Pichai’s spearheading of Google’s Chrome browser — the world’s leading web browser, which has Google search set as the default — and his oversight of negotiations of Google’s default deals with device makers have been of interest to prosecutors.
The evidence presented to the court includes an email Pichai sent to colleagues in 2007 suggesting they allow Apple to make it easy to switch from Google to Yahoo search on Apple’s Safari browser, even though Google was insisting on default status as part of their revenue-sharing deal. Pichai wrote that he didn’t think it was a good user experience, and worried about the “optics” of being the only search engine in the browser.
Other internal Google emails shown at trial suggest executives were mindful about avoiding becoming an antitrust target by eschewing keywords like “market share” in their records.
Gary Reback, a veteran antitrust attorney who is following the trial but not representing either party, noted that much of the Justice Department’s case was based on emails and other records from Google itself. However, in their trial testimony, Google executives contested the Justice Department’s conclusions from the written records, and it remains to be seen which version Mehta will find more credible. “Something important in this case is, is the Google witness testimony in the trial being believed by the judge or not?” Reback said.
The tech industry is closely watching the trial, the first time the Justice Department has taken a tech company to court on antitrust charges since Microsoft in 1998. It is the first of two antitrust cases the Justice Department is pursuing against Google.
Other prominent executives who’ve appeared on the stand included Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella and Apple senior vice presidents Eddy Cue and John Giannandrea.
Giannandrea’s testimony revealed that Apple considered mounting a challenge against Google in search by acquiring Microsoft’s search engine Bing, but that it decided its customers would prefer to use Google search.
Executives from Google’s smaller search rivals DuckDuckGo and Neeva also testified, arguing that they didn’t have a level playing field due to Google’s default deals and other practices.
The case has been marked by clashes over public access. Judge Mehta started out with a conservative approach, granting Google a sealed courtroom for extensive portions of testimony. The New York Times and other news organizations filed a motion earlier this month for greater transparency.
Responding to backlash, Mehta has shifted to a more open approach, including retroactively unsealing parts of the testimony.
