The Kamala Harris campaign’s cozy ties with Big Tech have sparked worries that Google will probably be allowed to wiggle out of a proposed breakup of its search empire if she is elected president, The Post has learned.
Harris is near Paul Weiss – the white-shoe law firm leading Google’s defense in one other major antitrust case targeting its digital ad business. Karen Dunn, the firm’s top litigator, helps Harris with debate prep. Likewise, the firm’s chairman Brad Karp is reportedly heading up a “Lawyers Committee for Kamala Harris” to boost money for her White House bid.
The previous US senator from California can be leaning heavily on Eric Holder, who led the vetting of her potential running mates, and her brother-in-law Tony West, a Silicon Valley ally who took a leave from his role as chief legal officer at Uber to assist her campaign. Each are reportedly on the shortlist of potential candidates for Cabinet positions in a Harris administration.
“It’s obviously dramatic by way of the optics,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director on the Revolving Door Project. “It’s going to be a fork-in-the-road moment for a Harris administration that will develop into clear even before she’s inaugurated if we see whether or not these figures get slotted for key White House or Justice Department jobs.”
The Justice Department will likely press to dismantle Google after Judge Amit Mehta ruled the corporate has an illegal monopoly over online search. While Mehta will weigh potential remedies starting Sept. 6, the spat will stretch far into the following president’s first term.
The danger of a win for Harris – who, as president, would have power to appoint antitrust leaders within the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission – is that tech-friendly advisers could lobby behind the scenes for leniency toward Google, concerned experts told The Post.
“They might lean on [deputy attorney general] Lisa Monaco to settle,” one well-connected tech policy expert told The Post. “Say ‘OK, we proved our point, go get Google’s best offer, be certain that it has 3 commas and let’s call it a day.’ And nothing changes.”
While serving as attorney general within the tech-friendly Obama administration in 2010, Holder blocked then-DOJ antitrust chief Christine Varney from pursuing a probe into Google for monopolizing search, a source near the DOJ said. As a substitute, the FTC investigated and didn’t press charges.
A Harris campaign spokesperson declined to comment. Representatives for Paul Weiss, Eric Holder and the DOJ didn’t return requests for comment.
Donald Trump – whose DOJ first brought an antitrust case targeting Google search in 2020 – is way more more likely to demand a meaningful crackdown on the corporate, based on Bill Kovacic, a Republican-appointed FTC Chair from 2008 to 2009.
“I sense Trump distrusts and dislikes the tech sector greater than she does,” Kovacic said. “Trump thinks all of the tech leaders kept him from winning in 2020. He might need to punish them by forcing a breakup.”
In recent interviews, Trump has referred to Google as “illegitimate,” said the corporate “must be careful” and claimed he had “a sense Google goes to be near shutdown.”
Makan Delrahim, the DOJ’s antitrust chief throughout the Trump administration, intended from the start to pursue a breakup of Google, the source near the DOJ said.
Harris has yet to obviously define her views on tech-related antitrust. In a Friday speech detailing her economic platform, Harris pushed controversial plans to lower grocery prices and housing costs, but didn’t address whether she plans to crack down on Big Tech monopolies.
She has received donations from Google prior to now and reportedly presented herself as an ally to the tech industry during a 2010 meeting with company employees.
Advisers who oppose a significant anti-monopoly push wouldn’t necessarily need Cabinet positions to wield behind-the-scenes influence on antitrust issues, experts said.
A longtime Democratic operative, Dunn was once considered a candidate to function head of the DOJ’s antitrust division – a task that later went to current boss Jonathan Kanter. She also helped attorney general Merrick Garland prepare for his Senate confirmation hearing in 2021.
Except for her work for Google, Dunn has represented Apple and Uber in major court battles.
“Karen Dunn is being paid extravagantly by Google to get it off the hook – ideally through a slap on the wrist settlement – so it’s concerning that she has a lot access to Vice President Harris, Garland, Monaco and their teams,” one Capitol Hill veteran who requested anonymity to debate the matter said.
Paul Weiss employees have contributed a whopping $1.46 million to Democrats this cycle – greater than every other law firm, based on data compiled by OpenSecrets. The firm also employs multiple former members of the Biden-Harris DOJ.
Still, a possible Harris administration can be limited in its ability to affect the DOJ’s Google cases, even when it were inclined to take a friendlier approach to Big Tech.
Any try and meddle within the DOJ’s affairs could prompt a pointy public backlash from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, based on Hauser.
That was evident earlier this 12 months when Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman sparked outrage by publicly calling on Harris to fireside FTC chair Lina Khan if she is elected.
“I can’t imagine a Harris administration having each the desire and the spine to do a ‘Saturday night massacre’ on the antitrust division,” Hauser said. “It will be ‘a-ha, big donors means you do that.’ That could be a catastrophic scandal for a latest administration to endure.”
Google has already vowed to appeal the federal judge’s ruling within the search case, which suggests that any penalties that arise from the search trial are likely years away from being implemented.
Mehta determined that Google’s practice of paying billions of dollars to partners like Apple to make sure its search engine is enabled by default on most smartphones had stifled competition.
DOJ attorneys could push Mehta to order Google to sell portions of its business, reminiscent of its Android operating system, Chrome web browser and promoting platform AdWords, Bloomberg reported. Other options include ending Google’s default deals or forcing it to share data with rival search engines like google.
The separate major DOJ antitrust case targeting Google’s alleged monopoly over digital promoting technology can be slated for trial this September – and one other loss could similarly upend the corporate’s business model.
The Kamala Harris campaign’s cozy ties with Big Tech have sparked worries that Google will probably be allowed to wiggle out of a proposed breakup of its search empire if she is elected president, The Post has learned.
Harris is near Paul Weiss – the white-shoe law firm leading Google’s defense in one other major antitrust case targeting its digital ad business. Karen Dunn, the firm’s top litigator, helps Harris with debate prep. Likewise, the firm’s chairman Brad Karp is reportedly heading up a “Lawyers Committee for Kamala Harris” to boost money for her White House bid.
The previous US senator from California can be leaning heavily on Eric Holder, who led the vetting of her potential running mates, and her brother-in-law Tony West, a Silicon Valley ally who took a leave from his role as chief legal officer at Uber to assist her campaign. Each are reportedly on the shortlist of potential candidates for Cabinet positions in a Harris administration.
“It’s obviously dramatic by way of the optics,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director on the Revolving Door Project. “It’s going to be a fork-in-the-road moment for a Harris administration that will develop into clear even before she’s inaugurated if we see whether or not these figures get slotted for key White House or Justice Department jobs.”
The Justice Department will likely press to dismantle Google after Judge Amit Mehta ruled the corporate has an illegal monopoly over online search. While Mehta will weigh potential remedies starting Sept. 6, the spat will stretch far into the following president’s first term.
The danger of a win for Harris – who, as president, would have power to appoint antitrust leaders within the DOJ and Federal Trade Commission – is that tech-friendly advisers could lobby behind the scenes for leniency toward Google, concerned experts told The Post.
“They might lean on [deputy attorney general] Lisa Monaco to settle,” one well-connected tech policy expert told The Post. “Say ‘OK, we proved our point, go get Google’s best offer, be certain that it has 3 commas and let’s call it a day.’ And nothing changes.”
While serving as attorney general within the tech-friendly Obama administration in 2010, Holder blocked then-DOJ antitrust chief Christine Varney from pursuing a probe into Google for monopolizing search, a source near the DOJ said. As a substitute, the FTC investigated and didn’t press charges.
A Harris campaign spokesperson declined to comment. Representatives for Paul Weiss, Eric Holder and the DOJ didn’t return requests for comment.
Donald Trump – whose DOJ first brought an antitrust case targeting Google search in 2020 – is way more more likely to demand a meaningful crackdown on the corporate, based on Bill Kovacic, a Republican-appointed FTC Chair from 2008 to 2009.
“I sense Trump distrusts and dislikes the tech sector greater than she does,” Kovacic said. “Trump thinks all of the tech leaders kept him from winning in 2020. He might need to punish them by forcing a breakup.”
In recent interviews, Trump has referred to Google as “illegitimate,” said the corporate “must be careful” and claimed he had “a sense Google goes to be near shutdown.”
Makan Delrahim, the DOJ’s antitrust chief throughout the Trump administration, intended from the start to pursue a breakup of Google, the source near the DOJ said.
Harris has yet to obviously define her views on tech-related antitrust. In a Friday speech detailing her economic platform, Harris pushed controversial plans to lower grocery prices and housing costs, but didn’t address whether she plans to crack down on Big Tech monopolies.
She has received donations from Google prior to now and reportedly presented herself as an ally to the tech industry during a 2010 meeting with company employees.
Advisers who oppose a significant anti-monopoly push wouldn’t necessarily need Cabinet positions to wield behind-the-scenes influence on antitrust issues, experts said.
A longtime Democratic operative, Dunn was once considered a candidate to function head of the DOJ’s antitrust division – a task that later went to current boss Jonathan Kanter. She also helped attorney general Merrick Garland prepare for his Senate confirmation hearing in 2021.
Except for her work for Google, Dunn has represented Apple and Uber in major court battles.
“Karen Dunn is being paid extravagantly by Google to get it off the hook – ideally through a slap on the wrist settlement – so it’s concerning that she has a lot access to Vice President Harris, Garland, Monaco and their teams,” one Capitol Hill veteran who requested anonymity to debate the matter said.
Paul Weiss employees have contributed a whopping $1.46 million to Democrats this cycle – greater than every other law firm, based on data compiled by OpenSecrets. The firm also employs multiple former members of the Biden-Harris DOJ.
Still, a possible Harris administration can be limited in its ability to affect the DOJ’s Google cases, even when it were inclined to take a friendlier approach to Big Tech.
Any try and meddle within the DOJ’s affairs could prompt a pointy public backlash from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, based on Hauser.
That was evident earlier this 12 months when Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman sparked outrage by publicly calling on Harris to fireside FTC chair Lina Khan if she is elected.
“I can’t imagine a Harris administration having each the desire and the spine to do a ‘Saturday night massacre’ on the antitrust division,” Hauser said. “It will be ‘a-ha, big donors means you do that.’ That could be a catastrophic scandal for a latest administration to endure.”
Google has already vowed to appeal the federal judge’s ruling within the search case, which suggests that any penalties that arise from the search trial are likely years away from being implemented.
Mehta determined that Google’s practice of paying billions of dollars to partners like Apple to make sure its search engine is enabled by default on most smartphones had stifled competition.
DOJ attorneys could push Mehta to order Google to sell portions of its business, reminiscent of its Android operating system, Chrome web browser and promoting platform AdWords, Bloomberg reported. Other options include ending Google’s default deals or forcing it to share data with rival search engines like google.
The separate major DOJ antitrust case targeting Google’s alleged monopoly over digital promoting technology can be slated for trial this September – and one other loss could similarly upend the corporate’s business model.
