Exclusive | Lawyers seeking ‘caution’ for Google Antitrust Remedies Research Search Search have cozy Big Tech links

A group of prominent lawyers claimed to be targeted last month after they asked a federal judge to take “care” when imposing antitrust tools against the Google’s Internet search empire – but many have comfortable links to Big Tech, the post has learned.

US District Judge Ait Mehta is expected to rule until August in the best way to restore Google’s illegal predominance during internet search after deciding last year that the company was a “monopoly”. The Department of Justice, instead of simply punishing the wrongdoing of the past, wants Google and Ceo Sundar Pichai to sell Chrome’s internet browser among other tools.

On May 6, a group of former DOJs and the Federal Commission of Trade Antitrust submitted a brief warning of Amicus, federal judges against aggressive remedies. Lawyers said their shortening was “in support of no party” and was intended to instruct Mehta to follow the “proper standard of medication”.

However, many of Brief co -authors have direct or indirect links to Google and other large technology firms. This includes Joe Sims, who last year dismissed criticism of the widespread destruction of Google’s tests as “silly”, and Willard Tom, who once defended Google in the high -profile antitrust lawsuit filed by “Fortnite” Epic games.

Their arguments are closely compatible with those of the protection offered by Google, who claims that the Proposals of the DOJ go beyond the limits of the antitrust law and that the court risks endangering the US leadership – and even national security.

Lawyers’ links to Big Tech raised alarms with Google critics, including Sacha Haworth, executive director in the technique supervision project, who told the post that “speaks volumes that the only people rushing Google are paid by Google to care.”

“If Google is broken, it will be a victory for our digital economy that will lead to lower prices and more choices for consumers,” Haworth added.

In addition to a forced removal of Chrome, Doj wants Google to share his search data with rivals. The agency has also asked Mehta to consider the potential impact of Google’s massive investment on the search for energy from when it creates a legal environment.

Elsewhere, federations want Google to be banned from paying billions for companies like Apple to ensure that its search engine is set as the predetermined option on most smartphones. They also propose a forced Deviation of Google Android software if the starting tools are ineffective.

“We have long said that the proposals want go miles beyond the court ruling,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. “We appreciate that a wide range of experts, academics and businesses agree.”

A brief summary of amicus – also known as a summary of the “friend of the court” – generally includes information that third parties interested want to flag for the judge before reaching a judgment.

In one appearance, Brief co -authors noted that they were not paid by any external party and that no external party had contributed to writing.

Contributors included TAD Lipsky, which heads the Competition Advocacy Program at the Global Antitrust Institute of George Mason University – which has received millions of funds from Google and other large technology firms, often argue for a slight touch in antitrust implementation.

Sims withdrew as a partner at Jones Day Law in 2016. In July 2024, Jones Day successfully provided dismissal of a classroom lawsuit accusing Google of violating antitrust associated with his mapping service.

Last August, Sims raised his eyebrows when he argued that Mehta was “silly” for criticizing Google for deleting his employee conversation records during the search trial – contrary to court orders to maintain evidence.

“No firm has an obligation to create a paper path for people or entities that may want to attack it,” Sims wrote on X. “If anything, it has an obligation of faith to do the opposite.”

Tom is a former partner in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius who represented Google against “Fortnite” Epic Games’ antitrust’s manufacturer until his retirement in July 2022. Google eventually lost a bomb decision that has major implications for his “Google Play” App Store.

Richard Parker previously represented Apple in the EBOBs Bleu issue and currently works in Milbank Tweed, a firm that advised Google in the search trial and helped to argue for her continued appeal of the Epic Game Judgment.

Short notes that Parker contributed to his “personal ability” and “had not worked for Google on this issue or any other issue”.

Terry Calvani worked on Freshfields Bruckhaus deringer Law firm from 2005 to 2019 – a period in which the firm served as an external adviser to Google in several lawsuits. From 2020 to 2025, Calvini was a senior adviser at the Strategic Communication Firm Brunswick Group, which counts Google as a customer.

Some implementers who support Brief Amicus, including Sims and Lipsky, have been ranked as authors of the truth in the market-a blog focused on the law on competition with close links with the International Big Tech Center with technology and economics.

Jon Neuchterlein is an elderly co -worker at the Technology Policy Institute, who admits on her website she has received from donations from Google, Amazon and Apple like other technology firms.

From 2015 to 2024, Neuchterlein was a partner at the Sidley Austin legal firm. During his stay, the firm counted Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Intel among its clients.

In their summary, antitrust lawyers asked Mehta to take “care” when taking into account two elements of the forced Chrome Deviation Proposal and the Research Data Separation Request to avoid exceeding the antitrust law.

“Antitrust remedies in a case of monopolies are intended to interrupt illegal behavior and prevent its recurrence, and to correct the proven damage to the competition caused by illegal behavior,” it said in February.

The lawyers added that remedies that “further than that or that have not been created closely to achieve those goals can undermine the purpose of antitrust laws by preventing the very strong competition that those laws aim to promote.”