At the end of 2024, a US court authorized the Department of Justice to sell 69,370 bitcoins from “the largest cryptocurrency seizure in history.”
At bitcoin’s current price, just under $92,000, these bitcoins are worth nearly $6.4 billion, and crypto outlets are reporting that DOJ officials have said they’re planning to proceed with selling off the assets consistent with the court’s order. The DOJ had reportedly argued that bitcoin’s price volatility was a pressing reason to push for permission for the sale.
Ars has reached out to the DOJ for comment and will update the story with any new information regarding next steps.
A hacker initially stole these bitcoins from Silk Road—an illegal online marketplace where goods could only be bought and sold with bitcoins—in 2012, shortly before the US government shut down the marketplace. The US later discovered the stolen bitcoins in 2020 while conducting further investigations of Silk Road, eventually securing a consent agreement that year from the hacker, who signed the bitcoins over to the government.
Whether the government’s seizure of those bitcoins was proper has been disputed by Battle Born Investments, a company that purchased the assets of bankruptcy estate from an individual who they believed to be either the hacker whose bitcoins were seized or someone “associated with him.”
After a court battle failed to return the bitcoins, Battle Born attempted to unmask the hacker through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which sparked a new court fight. But ultimately, in late December, the court agreed with the US government that the hacker had a right to privacy as someone who was the subject of a criminal investigation and shouldn’t be unmasked. That ended Battle Born’s claim to the bitcoins and cleared the way for the government’s sale.
The Justice Department says that landlords did more than use RealPage in the alleged pricing scheme. “Along with using RealPage’s anticompetitive pricing algorithms, these landlords coordinated through a variety of means,” such as “directly communicating with competitors’ senior managers about rents, occupancy, and other competitively sensitive topics,” the DOJ said.
There were “call arounds” in which “property managers called or emailed competitors to share, and sometimes discuss, competitively sensitive information about rents, occupancy, pricing strategies and discounts,” the DOJ said.
Landlords discussed their use of RealPage software with each other, the DOJ said. “For instance, landlords discussed via user groups how to modify the software’s pricing methodology, as well as their own pricing strategies,” the DOJ said. “In one example, LivCor and Willow Bridge executives participated in a user group discussion of plans for renewal increases, concessions and acceptance rates of RealPage rent recommendations.”
DOJ: Firms discussed “auto-accept” settings
The DOJ lawsuit says RealPage pushes clients to use “auto-accept settings” that automatically approve pricing recommendations. The DOJ said today that property rental firms discussed how they use those settings.
“As an example, at the request of Willow Bridge’s director of revenue management, Greystar’s director of revenue management supplied its standard auto-accept parameters for RealPage’s software, including the daily and weekly limits and the days of the week for which Greystar used ‘auto-accept,'” the DOJ said.
Greystar issued a statement saying it is “disappointed that the DOJ added us and other operators to their lawsuit against RealPage,” and that it will “vigorously” defend itself in court. “Greystar has and will conduct its business with the utmost integrity. At no time did Greystar engage in any anti-competitive practices,” the company said.
The Justice Department is joined in the case by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington. The case is in US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
A bitcoin investor who went to increasingly great lengths to hide $1 million in cryptocurrency gains on his tax returns was sentenced to two years in prison on Thursday.
It seems that not even his most “sophisticated” tactics—including using mixers, managing multiple wallets, and setting up in-person meetings to swap bitcoins for cash—kept the feds from tracing crypto trades that he believed were untraceable.
The Austin, Texas, man, Frank Richard Ahlgren III, started buying up bitcoins in 2011. In 2015, he upped his trading, purchasing approximately 1,366 using Coinbase accounts. He waited until 2017 before cashing in, earning $3.7 million after selling about 640 at a price more than 10 times his initial costs. Celebrating his gains, he bought a house in Utah in 2017, mostly funded by bitcoins he purchased in 2015.
Very quickly, Ahlgren sought to hide these earnings, the Department of Justice said in a press release. Rather than report them on his 2017 tax return, Ahlgren “lied to his accountant by submitting a false summary of his gains and losses from the sale of his bitcoins.” He did this by claiming that the bitcoins he purchased in 2015 were much higher than his actual costs, even being so bold as to claim he as charged prices “greater than the highest price bitcoins sold for in the market prior to the purchase of the Utah house.”
First tax evasion prosecution centered solely on crypto
Ahlgren’s tax evasion only got bolder as the years passed after this first fraud, the DOJ said.
In 2018 and 2019, he sold more bitcoins, earning more than $650,000 and deciding not to report any of it on his tax returns for those years. That meant that he needed to actively conceal the earnings, but he’d been apparently researching how mixers are used to disguise where bitcoins come from since at least 2014, the feds found, referencing a blog he wrote exhibiting his knowledge. And that’s not the only step he took to try to trick the Internal Revenue Service.
After US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google has a monopoly in two markets—general search services and general text advertising—everybody is wondering how Google might be forced to change its search business.
Specifically, the judge ruled that Google’s exclusive deals with browser and device developers secured Google’s monopoly. These so-called default agreements funneled the majority of online searches to Google search engine result pages (SERPs), where results could be found among text ads that have long generated the bulk of Google’s revenue.
At trial, Mehta’s ruling noted, it was estimated that if Google lost its most important default deal with Apple, Google “would lose around 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming that it could retain some users without the Safari default.”
Experts told Ars that disrupting these default deals is the most obvious remedy that the US Department of Justice will seek to restore competition in online search. Other remedies that may be sought range from least painful for Google (mandating choice screens in browsers and devices) to most painful (requiring Google to divest from either Chrome or Android, where it was found to be self-preferencing).
But the remedies phase of litigation may have to wait until after Google’s appeal, which experts said could take years to litigate before any remedies are ever proposed in court. Whether Google could be successful in appealing the ruling is currently being debated, with anti-monopoly advocates backing Mehta’s ruling as “rock solid” and critics suggesting that the ruling’s fresh takes on antitrust law are open to attack.
Google declined Ars’ request to comment on appropriate remedies or its plan to appeal.
Previously, Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, confirmed in a statement that the tech giant would be appealing the ruling because the court found that “Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search,’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.'”
“Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal,” Walker said. “As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”
But Mehta found that Google was wielding its outsize influence in the search industry to block rivals from competing by locking browsers and devices into agreements ensuring that all searches went to Google SERPs. None of the pro-competitive benefits that Google claimed justified the exclusive deals persuaded Mehta, who ruled that “importantly,” Google “exercised its monopoly power by charging supra-competitive prices for general search text ads”—and thus earned “monopoly profits.”
While experts think the appeal process will delay litigation on remedies, Google seems to think that Mehta may rule on potential remedies before Google can proceed with its appeal. Walker told Google employees that a ruling on remedies may arrive in the next few months, The Wall Street Journal reported. Ars will continue monitoring for updates on this timeline.
As the DOJ’s case against Google’s search business has dragged on, reports have long suggested that a loss for Google could change the way that nearly the entire world searches the Internet.
Adam Epstein—the president and co-CEO of adMarketplace, which bills itself as “the largest consumer search technology company outside of Google and Bing”—told Ars that innovations in search could result in a broader landscape of more dynamic search experiences that draw from sources beyond Google and allow searchers to skip Google’s SERPs entirely. If that happens, the coming years could make Google’s ubiquitous search experience today a distant memory.
“By the end of this decade, going to a search engine results page will seem quaint,” Epstein predicted. “The court’s decision sets the stage for a remedy that will dramatically improve the search experience for everyone connected to the web. The era of innovation in search is just around the corner.”
The DOJ has not meaningfully discussed potential remedies it will seek, but Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, celebrated the ruling.
“This landmark decision holds Google accountable,” Kanter said. “It paves the path for innovation for generations to come and protects access to information for all Americans.”
Google just lost a massive antitrust trial over its sprawling search business, as US district judge Amit Mehta released his ruling, showing that he sided with the US Department of Justice in the case that could disrupt how billions of people search the web.
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his opinion. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
The verdict will likely come as a shock to Google, which had long argued that punishing Google for being the best in search would be “unprecedented” and frequently pointed to the DOJ’s lack of direct evidence. However, Mehta found the limited direct evidence compelling, especially “Google’s admission that it does not ‘consider whether users will go to other specific search providers (general or otherwise) if it introduces a change to its Search product.'”
“Google’s indifference is unsurprising,” Mehta wrote. “In 2020, Google conducted a quality degradation study, which showed that it would not lose search revenue if were to significantly reduce the quality of its search product. Just as the power to raise price ‘when it is desired to do so’ is proof of monopoly power, so too is the ability to degrade product quality without concern of losing consumers.”
He also wrote that the DOJ’s indirect evidence “easily establishes Google’s monopoly power in search” and concluded that “the fact that Google makes product changes without concern that its users might go elsewhere is something only a firm with monopoly power could do.”
Google didn’t lose every battle in this big fight with the DOJ. Mehta ruled that Google did not have monopoly power in search advertising, agreed that there was no market for general search advertising, and declined to sanction Google for allegedly destroying evidence by “failing to preserve its employees’ chat messages.”
Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, provided a statement to Ars, confirming that Google plans to appeal.
“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker said. “We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search,’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”
Google monopolizes two markets, judge ruled
Mehta ruled that Google spending billions on exclusive distribution agreements with companies like Apple helped the tech giant maintain monopolies in two markets, general search services and general text advertising.
The US government had argued that Google used these exclusive deals to block out competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo, “by ensuring that all of Android and Apple and mobile users are offered Google, either as the default general search engine or the only general search engine, Google’s deals with Android and Apple clearly have a significant effect in preserving its monopoly.” The DOJ successfully argued that blocks rivals from reaching the “critical level necessary” to “pose a real threat to Google’s monopoly.”
Mehta noted that Google’s dominance had “gone unchallenged for well over a decade,” partly due to a “largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution.” He found that Google’s exclusive distribution deals foreclosed a “substantial share” of the markets and allowed Google to earn more revenues. Google then shared spiking revenues with device and browser developers—spending up to $26 billion in 2021 alone for exclusive deals, the trial revealed.
Google did all this, Mehta said, to ensure that “most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google” and to force “Google’s rivals to find other ways to reach users.” The DOJ successfully argued that this posed “significant barriers that protect Google’s market dominance in general search,” with rivals having to overcome “high capital costs—”to the tune of billions of dollars,” Mehta wrote—”Google’s control of key distribution channels, brand recognition, and scale.”
Barriers to entry in general text advertising are similarly “high,” Mehta said, with new entrants facing “the same major obstacles as would the developer of a new” search engine.
One of the most scrutinized exclusive deals was between Google and Apple, which was estimated at $20 billion in 2022. “This is nearly double the payment made in 2020,” Mehta noted, suggesting that Google increasingly valued the deal locking its search engine as the default in Safari as a way to shore up its search dominance.
“Google has long recognized that, if Apple were to develop and deploy its own search engine as the default” search tool “in Safari, it would come at great cost to Google,” Mehta wrote. Without the deal, Google “would lose around 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming that it could retain some users without the Safari default” placement. But “Apple has decided not to enter general search,” Mehta said, likely because it “would forego significant revenues” and potentially face user backlash if it stopped partnering with Google. Similarly high revenue loss would occur if “Google were to lose the Android defaults,” Mehta said.
None of the pro-competitive benefits that Google claimed justified the exclusive deals persuaded Mehta, who ruled that “importantly,” Google “exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads”—and thus earned “monopoly profits.”
“That Google makes changes to its text ads auctions without considering its rivals’ prices is something that only a firm with monopoly power is able to do,” Mehta wrote. And “Google in fact has profitably raised prices substantially above the competitive level. That makes ‘the existence of monopoly power” “clear.”
Ultimately, Mehta ruled that “Google has no true competitor” in general search and without any “genuine” competition, “over the last decade, Google’s grip on the market has only grown stronger.” Further, he found that “Google understands there is no genuine competition for the defaults because it knows that its partners cannot afford to go elsewhere,” disagreeing with Google’s arguments that the default deals were not exclusive.
“The key question then is this: Do Google’s exclusive distribution contracts reasonably appear capable of significantly contributing to maintaining Google’s monopoly power in the general search services market?” Mehta wrote. “The answer is ‘yes.'”
The US Department of Justice sued TikTok today, accusing the short-video platform of illegally collecting data on millions of kids and demanding a permanent injunction “to put an end to TikTok’s unlawful massive-scale invasions of children’s privacy.”
The DOJ said that TikTok had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule), claiming that TikTok allowed kids “to create and access accounts without their parents’ knowledge or consent,” collected “data from those children,” and failed to “comply with parents’ requests to delete their children’s accounts and information.”
The COPPA Rule requires TikTok to prove that it does not target kids as its primary audience, the DOJ said, and TikTok claims to satisfy that “by requiring users creating accounts to report their birthdates.”
However, even if a child inputs their real birthdate, the DOJ said, TikTok does nothing to stop them from restarting the process and using a fake birthdate. Dodging TikTok’s age gate has been easy for millions of kids, the DOJ alleged, and TikTok knows that, collecting their information anyway and neglecting to delete information even when child users “identify themselves as children.”
“The precise magnitude” of TikTok’s violations “is difficult to determine,” the DOJ’s complaint said. But TikTok’s “internal analyses show that millions of TikTok’s US users are children under the age of 13.”
“For example, the number of US TikTok users that Defendants classified as age 14 or younger in 2020 was millions higher than the US Census Bureau’s estimate of the total number of 13- and 14-year-olds in the United States, suggesting that many of those users were children younger than 13,” the DOJ said.
TikTok seemingly risks huge fines if the DOJ proves its case. The DOJ has asked a jury to agree that damages are owed for each “collection, use, or disclosure of a child’s personal information” that violates the COPPA Rule, with likely multiple violations spanning millions of children’s accounts. And any recent violations could cost more, as the DOJ noted that the FTC Act authorizes civil penalties up to $51,744 “for each violation of the Rule assessed after January 10, 2024.”
A TikTok spokesperson told Ars that TikTok plans to fight the lawsuit, which is part of the US’s ongoing battle with the app. Currently, TikTok is fighting a nationwide ban that was passed this year, due to growing political tensions with its China-based owner and lawmakers’ concerns over TikTok’s data collection and alleged repeated spying on Americans.
“We disagree with these allegations, many of which relate to past events and practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed,” TikTok’s spokesperson told Ars. “We are proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform. To that end, we offer age-appropriate experiences with stringent safeguards, proactively remove suspected underage users, and have voluntarily launched features such as default screentime limits, Family Pairing, and additional privacy protections for minors.”
The DOJ seems to think damages are owed for past as well as possibly current violations. It claimed that TikTok already has more sophisticated ways to identify the ages of child users for ad-targeting but doesn’t use the same technology to block underage sign-ups because TikTok is allegedly unwilling to dedicate resources to widely police kids on its platform.
“By adhering to these deficient policies, Defendants actively avoid deleting the accounts of users they know to be children,” the DOJ alleged, claiming that “internal communications reveal that Defendants’ employees were aware of this issue.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has joined progressive groups—including Demand Progress, Open Markets Institute, and the Tech Oversight Project—pressuring the US Department of Justice to investigate Nvidia’s dominance in the AI chip market due to alleged antitrust concerns, Reuters reported.
In a letter to the DOJ’s chief antitrust enforcer, Jonathan Kanter, groups demanding more Big Tech oversight raised alarms that Nvidia’s top rivals apparently “are struggling to gain traction” because “Nvidia’s near-absolute dominance of the market is difficult to counter” and “funders are wary of backing its rivals.”
Nvidia is currently “the world’s most valuable public company,” their letter said, worth more than $3 trillion after taking near-total control of the high-performance AI chip market. Particularly “astonishing,” the letter said, was Nvidia’s dominance in the market for GPU accelerator chips, which are at the heart of today’s leading AI. Groups urged Kanter to probe Nvidia’s business practices to ensure that rivals aren’t permanently blocked from competing.
According to the advocacy groups that strongly oppose Big Tech monopolies, Nvidia “now holds an 80 percent overall global market share in GPU chips and a 98 percent share in the data center market.” This “puts it in a position to crowd out competitors and set global pricing and the terms of trade,” the letter warned.
Earlier this year, inside sources reported that the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission reached a deal where the DOJ would probe Nvidia’s alleged anti-competitive behavior in the booming AI industry, and the FTC would probe OpenAI and Microsoft. But there has been no official Nvidia probe announced, prompting progressive groups to push harder for the DOJ to recognize what they view as a “dire danger to the open market” that “well deserves DOJ scrutiny.”
Ultimately, the advocacy groups told Kanter that they fear Nvidia wielding “control over the world’s computing destiny,” noting that Nvidia’s cloud computing data centers don’t just power “Big Tech’s consumer products” but also “underpin every aspect of contemporary society, including the financial system, logistics, healthcare, and defense.”
They claimed that Nvidia is “leveraging” its “scarce chips” to force customers to buy its “chips, networking, and programming software as a package.” Such bundling and “price-fixing,” their letter warned, appear to be “the same kinds of anti-competitive tactics that the courts, in response to actions brought by the Department of Justice against other companies, have found to be illegal” and could perhaps “stifle innovation.”
Although data from TechInsights suggested that Nvidia’s chip shortage and cost actually helped companies like AMD and Intel sell chips in 2023, both Nvidia rivals reported losses in market share earlier this year, Yahoo Finance reported.
Since then, the European Union and the United Kingdom, as well as the US, have heightened scrutiny, but their seeming lag to follow through with an official investigation may only embolden Nvidia, as the company allegedly “believes its market behavior is above the law,” the progressive groups wrote. Suspicious behavior includes allegations that “Nvidia has continued to sell chips to Chinese customers and provide them computing access” despite a “Department of Commerce ban on trading with Chinese companies due to national security and human rights concerns.”
“Its chips have been confirmed to be reaching blacklisted Chinese entities,” their letter warned, citing a Wall Street Journal report.
Nvidia’s dominance apparently impacts everyone involved with AI. According to the letter, Nvidia seemingly “determining who receives inventory from a limited supply, setting premium pricing, and contractually blocking customers from doing business with competitors” is “alarming” the entire AI industry. That includes “both small companies (who find their supply choked off) and the Big Tech AI giants.”
Kanter will likely be receptive to the letter. In June, Fast Company reported that Kanter told an audience at an AI conference that there are “structures and trends in AI that should give us pause.” He further suggested that any technology that “relies on massive amounts of data and computing power” can “give already dominant firms a substantial advantage,” according to Fast Company’s summary of his remarks.
Accused by the US of criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud, and money laundering, Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova were arrested in 2022. Until last May, they were being detained in Argentina while a court mulled the Department of Justice’s extradition request, and the US quickly moved to seize Z-Library domains.
But according to a translated article from a local publication called La Voz, the pair suddenly disappeared after submitting a request “to be considered political refugees” in order to “avoid being sent to the US.” Napolsky and Ermakova had long denied wrongdoing, and apparently they “ran away” after giving up on the legal process. They reportedly even stopped talking to their defense lawyer.
Ars was not immediately able to reach the DOJ or the Patronato del Liberado—the agency in Argentina that confirmed to La Voz that the couple had escaped—to verify the report.
Officials told La Voz that the Patronato del Liberado was charged with monitoring the Z-Library admins’ house arrest and “were surprised to find that there was no trace of them” during a routine check-in last May.
According to La Voz, officials believed at that point that Napolsky and Ermakova were still in Argentina. However, after the courts were informed of their escape, a judge ordered their international arrest, suggesting that the court suspected they may have planned to leave the country. There have been no reports since indicating that the couple has resurfaced. TorrentFreak, which has been closely monitoring the case, opined that “the pair could be anywhere by now.”
Z-Library defends admins
The court process leading up to the extradition order was tense, TorrentFreak reported, with Napolsky and Ermakova partly arguing that extradition was inappropriate because the US had never specified “which copyrighted works had allegedly been infringed.”
The pair succeeded in removing the original judge from the case after proving he was biased to the US. But the replacement judge, Abel Sánchez Torres, ultimately ordered their extradition “on five charges classified as illegal copyright, conspiracy to commit electronic fraud, electronic fraud, and conspiracy to launder money,” La Voz reported. At that point, Sánchez Torres also ordered that Napolsky and Ermakova remain under house arrest.
Ars could not immediately reach the Z-Library team to comment on the admins’ reported escape, but Z-Library has long defended Napolsky and Ermakova as innocent. In a Change.org petition, the Z-Library team wrote that both were “project participants who ensure the operation of the platform” and were “not involved in uploading files” the US considered copyright-infringing, calling their detention “unfair and unacceptable.”
“Their detention occurred without compliance with legal norms and with numerous procedural violations, and the FBI request contained knowingly false data on the existence of a court sanction for arrest,” the Z-Library team wrote, clarifying that “a court sanction for arrest has been issued after the arrest” but not before.
The petition is addressed to US Attorney General Merrick Garland and Argentine officials, requesting access to seized Z-Library domains to be restored. It currently has 146,000 out of 150,000 signatures sought, with Z-Library fans defending the platform as providing critical access for people without financial means to knowledge and diverse educational resources.
“Without a doubt, blocking Z-Library seriously hinders academic activity and impedes scientific development,” the petition said, insisting that the US has ignored that “Z-Library contains many unique books and documents that may become inaccessible to the public. This would be a serious blow to the cultural and scientific heritage of humankind.”
The Z-Library team thinks that the US should be pursuing each copyright infringement case on its site separately, rather than targeting the whole platform for takedown.
“We call for the restoration of Z-Library and for a fair solution that takes into account both the rights of authors and the need for people to have free access to educational resources,” the petition said.
Enlarge/ Ten milligram tablets of the hyperactivity drug, Adderall, made by Shire Plc, is shown in a Cambridge, Massachusetts pharmacy Thursday, January 19, 2006.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday warned that a federal indictment of an allegedly fraudulent telehealth company may lead to a massive, nationwide disruption in access to ADHD medications—namely Adderall, but also other stimulants—and could possibly increase the risk of injuries and overdoses.
“A disruption involving this large telehealth company could impact as many as 30,000 to 50,000 patients ages 18 years and older across all 50 US states,” the CDC wrote in its health alert.
The CDC warning came on the heels of an announcement from the Justice Department Thursday that federal agents had arrested two people in connection with an alleged scheme to illegally distribute Adderall and other stimulants through a subscription-based online telehealth company called Done Global. The company’s CEO and founder, Ruthia He, was arrested in Los Angeles, and its clinical president, David Brody, was arrested in San Rafael, California.
“As alleged, these defendants exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to develop and carry out a $100 million scheme to defraud taxpayers and provide easy access to Adderall and other stimulants for no legitimate medical purpose,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. “Those seeking to profit from addiction by illegally distributing controlled substances over the Internet should know that they cannot hide their crimes and that the Justice Department will hold them accountable.”
Deadly consequences
According to the Justice Department, Done Global generated $100 million in revenue by arranging for the prescription of over 40 million pills of Adderall and other stimulants, which are addictive medications used to treat ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). Done Global allegedly eased access to the drugs by limiting the information available to prescribers, instructing prescribers to prescribe Adderall and other stimulants even if the patient didn’t qualify, and mandating that the prescribing appointments last no longer than 30 minutes. The company also discouraged prescriber follow-up appointments and added an “auto-refill” feature.
Prosecutors further allege that He and Brody continued with their scheme after becoming aware that patients had overdosed and died.
The CDC cautioned that the disruption from lost access to Done Global prescriptions comes amid a long-standing, nationwide shortage of Adderall and other stimulant medications. For patients with ADHD, the disruption could be harmful. “Untreated ADHD is associated with adverse outcomes, including social and emotional impairment, increased risk of drug or alcohol use disorder, unintentional injuries, such as motor vehicle crashes, and suicide,” the CDC warns. Further, a loss of access could drive some to seek illicit sources of the drugs, which could turn deadly.
“Patients whose care or access to prescription stimulant medications is disrupted, and who seek medication outside of the regulated healthcare system, might significantly increase their risk of overdose due to the prevalence of counterfeit pills in the illegal drug market that could contain unexpected substances, including fentanyl,” the CDC said. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine.
The Drug Enforcement Administration recently reported that seven out of every 10 pills seized from the illegal drug market contain a potentially lethal dose of illegally made fentanyl, the CDC noted.
This post was updated to clarify that the DEA’s data indicated that 70 percent of illicit pills seized contained “potentially” lethal doses, which was not included in the CDC’s warning.
Enlarge/ Kenneth Dintzer, litigator for the US Department of Justice, exits federal court in Washington, DC, on September 20, 2023, during the antitrust trial to determine if Alphabet Inc.’s Google maintains a monopoly in the online search business.
Near the end of the second day of closing arguments in the Google monopoly trial, US district judge Amit Mehta weighed whether sanctions were warranted over what the US Department of Justice described as Google’s “routine, regular, and normal destruction” of evidence.
Google was accused of enacting a policy instructing employees to turn chat history off by default when discussing sensitive topics, including Google’s revenue-sharing and mobile application distribution agreements. These agreements, the DOJ and state attorneys general argued, work to maintain Google’s monopoly over search.
According to the DOJ, Google destroyed potentially hundreds of thousands of chat sessions not just during their investigation but also during litigation. Google only stopped the practice after the DOJ discovered the policy. DOJ’s attorney Kenneth Dintzer told Mehta Friday that the DOJ believed the court should “conclude that communicating with history off shows anti-competitive intent to hide information because they knew they were violating antitrust law.”
Mehta at least agreed that “Google’s document retention policy leaves a lot to be desired,” expressing shock and surprise that a large company like Google would ever enact such a policy as best practice.
Google’s attorney Colette Connor told Mehta that the DOJ should have been aware of Google’s policy long before the DOJ challenged the conduct. Google had explicitly disclosed the policy to Texas’ attorney general, who was involved in DOJ’s antitrust suit over both Google’s search and adtech businesses, Connor said.
Connor also argued that Google’s conduct wasn’t sanctionable because there is no evidence that any of the missing chats would’ve shed any new light on the case. Mehta challenged this somewhat, telling Connor, “We just want to know what we don’t know. We don’t know if there was a treasure trove of material that was destroyed.”
During rebuttal, Dintzer told Mehta that Google’s decision to tell Texas about the policy but not the federal government did not satisfy their disclosure obligation under federal rules of civil procedure in the case. That rule says that “only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation may” the court “presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party.”
The DOJ has asked the court to make that ruling and issue four orders sanctioning Google. They want the court to order the “presumption that deleted chats were unfavorable,” the “presumption that Google’s proffered justification” for deleting chats “is pretextual” (concealing Google’s true rationale), and the “presumption that Google intended” to delete chats to “maintain its monopoly.” The government also wants a “prohibition on argument by Google that the absence of evidence is evidence of adverse inference,” which would stop Google from arguing that the DOJ is just assuming the deleted chats are unfavorable to Google.
Mehta asked Connor if she would agree that, at “minimum,” it was “negligent” of Google to leave it to employees to preserve chats on sensitive discussions, but Connor disagreed. She argued that “given the typical use of chat,” Google’s history-off policy was “reasonable.”
Connor told Mehta that the DOJ must prove that Google intended to hide evidence for the court to order sanctions.
That intent could be demonstrated another way, Mehta suggested, recalling that “Google has been very deliberate in advising employees about what to say and what not to say” in discussions that could indicate monopolistic behaviors. That included telling employees, “Don’t use the term markets,” Mehta told Connor, asking if that kind of conduct could be interpreted as Google’s intent to hide evidence.
But Connor disagreed again.
“No, we don’t think you can use it as evidence,” Connor said. “It’s not relevant to the claims in this case.”
But during rebuttal, Dintzer argued that there was evidence of its relevance. He said that testimony from Google employees showed that Google’s chat policy “was uniformly used as a way of communicating without creating discoverable information” intentionally to hide the alleged antitrust violations.
Enlarge/ John Schmidtlein, partner at Williams & Connolly LLP and lead litigator for Alphabet Inc.’s Google, arrives to federal court in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, Oct. 2, 2023.
Halfway through the first day of closing arguments in the Department of Justice’s big antitrust trial against Google, US District Judge Amit Mehta posed the question that likely many Google users have pondered over years of DOJ claims that Google’s market dominance has harmed users.
“What should Google have done to remain outside the crosshairs of the DOJ?” Mehta asked plaintiffs halfway through the first of two full days of closing arguments.
According to the DOJ and state attorneys general suing, Google has diminished search quality everywhere online, primarily by locking rivals out of default positions on devices and in browsers. By paying billions for default placements that the government has argued allowed Google to hoard traffic and profits, Google allegedly made it nearly impossible for rivals to secure enough traffic to compete, ultimately decreasing competition and innovation in search by limiting the number of viable search engines in the market.
The DOJ’s lead litigator, Kenneth Dintzer, told Mehta that what Google should have done was acknowledge that the search giant had an enormous market share and consider its duties more carefully under antitrust law. Instead, Dintzer alleged, Google chose the route of “hiding” and “destroying documents” because it was aware of conflicts with antitrust law.
“What should Google have done?” Dintzer told Mehta. “They should have recognized that by demanding locking down every default that they were opening themselves up to a challenge on the conduct.”
The most controversial default agreement that Google has made is a 21-year deal with Apple that Mehta has described as the “heart” of the government’s case against Google. During the trial, a witness accidentally blurted out Google’s carefully guarded secret of just how highly it values the Apple deal, revealing that Google pays 36 percent of its search advertising revenue from Safari just to remain the default search tool in Apple’s browser. In 2022 alone, trial documents revealed that Google paid Apple $20 billion for the deal, Bloomberg reported.
That’s in stark contrast to the 12 percent of revenue that Android manufacturers get from their default deals with Google. The government wants the court to consider all these default deals to be anti-competitive, with Dintzer suggesting during closing arguments that they are the “centerpiece” of “a lot” of Google’s exclusionary behavior that ultimately allowed Google to become the best search engine today—by “capturing the default and preventing rivals from getting access to those defaults.”
Google’s lawyers have argued that Google succeeds on its merits. Today, lead litigator John Schmidtlein repeatedly pointed out that antitrust law is designed to protect the competitive process, not specific competitors who fail to invest and innovate—as Microsoft did by failing to recognize how crucial mobile search would become.
“Merely getting advantages by winning on quality, they may have an effect on a rival, but the question is, does it have an anti-competitive effect?” Schmidtlein argued, noting that the DOJ hadn’t “shown that absent the agreements, Microsoft would have toppled Google.”
But Dintzer argued that “a mistake by one rival doesn’t mean that Google gets to monopolize this market forever.” When asked to explain why everyone—including some of Google’s rivals—testified that Google won contracts purely because it was the best search engine, Dintzer warned Mehta that the fact that Google’s rivals “may be happy cashing Google’s checks doesn’t tell us anything.”
According to Schmidtlein, Google could have crossed the line with the Apple deal, but it didn’t.
“Google didn’t go on to say to Apple, if you don’t make us the default, no Google search on Apple devices at all,” Schmidtlein argued. “That would be suicide for Google.”
It’s still unclear how Mehta may be leaning in this case, interrogating both sides with care and making it clear that he expects all his biggest questions to be answered after closing arguments conclude Friday evening.
But Mehta did suggest at one point today that it seemed potentially “impossible” for anyone to compete with Google for default placements.
“How would anybody be able to spend billions and billions of dollars to possibly dislodge Google?” Mehta asked. “Is there any real competition for the default spot?”
According to Schmidtlein, that is precisely what “competition on the merits” looks like.
“Google is winning because it’s better, and Apple is deciding Google is better for users,” Schmidtlein argued. “The antitrust laws are not designed to ensure a competitive market. They’re designed to ensure a competitive process.”
Proving the potential anti-competitive effects of Google’s default agreements, particularly the Apple deal, has long been regarded as the most critical point in order to win the government’s case. So it’s no surprise that the attorney representing state attorneys general, Bill Cavanaugh, praised Mehta for asking, “What should Google have done?” According to Cavanaugh, that was the “right question” to pose in this trial.
“What should they have done 10 years ago when there was a recognition” that “we’re monopolists” and “we have substantial control in markets” is ask, “How should we proceed with our contracts?” Cavanaugh argued. “That’s the question that they answered, but they answered it in the wrong way.”
Seemingly if Google’s default contracts posed fewer exclusionary concerns, the government seems to be arguing, there would be more competition and therefore more investment and innovation in search. But as long as Google controls the general search market, the government alleged that users won’t be able to search the web the way that they want.
Google is hoping that Mehta will reject the government’s theories and instead rule that Google has done nothing to stop rivals from improving the search landscape. Early in the day, Mehta told the DOJ that he was “struggling to see” how Google has either stopped innovating or degraded its search engine as a result of lack of competition.
Closing arguments continue on Friday. Mehta is not expected to rule until late summer or early fall.
In mid-June 2019, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and CEO Satya Nadella received a rude awakening in an email warning that Google had officially gotten too far ahead on AI and that Microsoft may never catch up without investing in OpenAI.
With the subject line “Thoughts on OpenAI,” the email came from Microsoft’s chief technology officer, Kevin Scott, who is also the company’s executive vice president of AI. In it, Scott said that he was “very, very worried” that he had made “a mistake” by dismissing Google’s initial AI efforts as a “game-playing stunt.”
It turned out, Scott suggested, that instead of goofing around, Google had been building critical AI infrastructure that was already paying off, according to a competitive analysis of Google’s products that Scott said showed that Google was competing even more effectively in search. Scott realized that while Google was already moving on to production for “larger scale, more interesting” AI models, it might take Microsoft “multiple years” before it could even attempt to compete with Google.
As just one example, Scott warned, “their auto-complete in Gmail, which is especially useful in the mobile app, is getting scarily good.”
Microsoft had tried to keep this internal email hidden, but late Tuesday it was made public as part of the US Justice Department’s antitrust trial over Google’s alleged search monopoly. The email was initially sealed because Microsoft argued that it contained confidential business information, but The New York Times intervened to get it unsealed, arguing that Microsoft’s privacy interests did not outweigh the need for public disclosure.
In an order unsealing the email among other documents requested by The Times, US District Judge Amit Mehta allowed to be redacted some of the “sensitive statements in the email concerning Microsoft’s business strategies that weigh against disclosure”—which included basically all of Scott’s “thoughts on OpenAI.” But other statements “should be disclosed because they shed light on Google’s defense concerning relative investments by Google and Microsoft in search,” Mehta wrote.
At the trial, Google sought to convince Mehta that Microsoft, for example, had failed to significantly invest in mobile early on, giving Google a competitive advantage in mobile search that it still enjoys today. Scott’s email seems to suggest that Microsoft was similarly dragging its feet on investing in AI until Scott’s wakeup call.
Nadella’s response to the email was immediate. He promptly forwarded the email to Microsoft’s chief financial officer, Amy Hood, on the same day that he received it. Scott’s “very good email,” Nadella told Hood, explained “why I want us to do this.” By “this,” Nadella presumably meant exploring investment opportunities in OpenAI.
Officially, Microsoft has said that its OpenAI partnership was formed “to accelerate AI breakthroughs to ensure these benefits are broadly shared with the world”—not to keep up with Google.
But at the Google trial, Nadella testified about the email, saying that partnering with companies like OpenAI ensured that Microsoft could continue innovating in search, as well as in other Microsoft services.
On the stand, Nadella also admitted that he had overhyped AI-powered Bing as potentially shaking up the search market, backing up the DOJ by testifying that in Silicon Valley, Internet search is “the biggest no-fly zone.” Even after partnering with OpenAI, Nadella said that for Microsoft to compete with Google in search, there are “limits to how much artificial intelligence can reshape the market as it exists today.”
During the Google trial, the DOJ argued that Google’s alleged search market dominance had hindered OpenAI’s efforts to innovate, too. “OpenAI’s ChatGPT and other innovations may have been released years ago if Google hadn’t monopolized the search market,” the DOJ argued, according to a Bloomberg report.
Closing arguments in the Google trial start tomorrow, with two days of final remarks scheduled, during which Mehta will have ample opportunity to ask lawyers on both sides the rest of his biggest remaining questions.
It’s somewhat obvious what Google will argue. Google has spent years defending its search business as competing on the merits—essentially arguing that Google dominates search simply because it’s the best search engine.
Yesterday, the US district court also unsealed Google’s proposed legal conclusions, which suggest that Mehta should reject all of the DOJ’s monopoly claims, partly due to the government’s allegedly “fatally flawed” market definitions. Throughout the trial, Google has maintained that the US government has failed to show that Google has a monopoly in any market.
According to Google, even its allegedly anticompetitive default browser agreement with Apple—which Mehta deemed the “heart” of the DOJ’s monopoly case—is not proof of monopoly powers. Rather, Google insisted, default browser agreements benefit competition by providing another avenue through which its rivals can compete.
Mehta has not yet disclosed when to expect his ruling, but it could come late this summer or early fall, AP News reported.
If Google loses, the search giant may be forced to change its business practices or potentially even break up its business. Nobody knows what that would entail, but when the trial started, a coalition of 20 civil society and advocacy groups recommended some potentially drastic remedies, including the “separation of various Google products from parent company Alphabet, including breakouts of Google Chrome, Android, Waze, or Google’s artificial intelligence lab Deepmind.”
