In a court case last month, Google argued that it needs privacy an antitrust case This would demonstrate its dominance in online searches.

“Once commercially sensitive information is disclosed in open court, the resulting damage to the party’s competitiveness cannot be reversed,” the internet giant wrote to the judge presiding over the case.

This was part of Google’s effort to limit transparency in the federal government first monopoly trial of the modern internet age. Before opening arguments began on Sept. 12, Google filed 35 motions and answers in the case — nearly two-thirds of which were sealed, according to a New York Times tally.

Now US et al. Google is entering its third week in court in what may be shaping up to be the most secretive antitrust case in decades. Not only Google, but also other companies involved, such as Apple and Microsoft, have advocated keeping the groundbreaking process largely out of the public eye. Apple even fought to reject subpoenas, describing them as “unduly burdensome” to deter its executives from testifying.

The result is that more than half of the testimony in the trial was given behind closed doors last week, a report said analysis. As a witness, the CEO of the search engine DuckDuckGo, testified on Thursday, he spoke on the witness stand for nearly five hours – only one hour of which was open to the public. At the judge’s request, the Justice Department, which is among the plaintiffs, also removed its presentations and evidence from the open Internet.

The lack of transparency continued this week when a top Apple executive, Eddy Cue, testified on Tuesday about a crucial search agreement that Apple made with Google. The federal government has accused Google of illegally using agreements with companies like Apple to maintain its monopoly in online search and crush competitors.

Late Monday, Apple asked the court to keep Mr. Cue’s testimony on the details of his Google agreement behind closed doors because of concerns that the Justice Department lawyer might “blurt out” confidential information. The company’s lawyers wrote that questioning Mr. Cue in open court posed a “significant risk” of revealing Apple’s business relationships and negotiations.

When the trial resumed on Tuesday, it began with 45 minutes of closed discussions about confidentiality – including the handling of documents and business details during Mr Cue’s testimony. Mr. Cue then testified for about four hours, more than half of which was closed to the public. During his public testimony, Mr. Cue spoke generally about the collaboration between Apple and Google, revealing few details about the contracts, while the Justice Department provided few pieces of evidence.

“The secrecy of the process is unprecedented in antitrust cases,” Diane Rulke, a professor of organizational behavior at Carnegie Mellon, said in an interview. Four other antitrust experts interviewed by The Times also called the proceedings unusually opaque, adding that the government’s antitrust case against Microsoft more than 24 years ago was far more accessible to the public and the press.

Google and the Justice Department declined to comment. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

The secrecy has angered legal and antitrust experts. In addition, Digital Content Next, a trade group and Google critic that represents the business interests of media companies such as The Times, filed a court request to release testimony and provide access to trial evidence and emails. The judge, Amit P Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has not responded to the request, according to the trade group’s head, Jason Kint.

Randal C. Picker, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said in an interview that the public should be able to monitor and examine the case’s arguments in real time to hold the parties accountable.

“The public should look at this — stare at Google and stare at the DOJ,” he said. “They are both very strong players here.”

However, it appears unlikely that the trial will be opened. Judge Mehta said in a preliminary hearing last month that he was not a businessman and suggested he was lenient to companies’ arguments that they needed to protect the details of their dealings.

“I am not someone who understands the industry and the markets like you do,” Judge Mehta said. “That’s why I take it seriously when companies tell me that disclosing this will lead to competitive harm.”

Efforts to conceal information in the case are long-standing.

Since the The lawsuit was filed in October 2020Google and others have argued that the court should keep financial transactions, business relationships and internal affairs away from the public, driven by a desire to avoid embarrassing disclosures and competing corporate secrets. Google’s partners such as Samsung and Competitors like DuckDuckGohave also attempted to hide some of their documents and statements from executives from the public.

In a statement of claim, Microsoft asked the court to consult it on confidentiality throughout the process.

The right to public access is “not absolute,” Microsoft wrote to the court. The company added that disclosing “its business strategies, internal deliberations and negotiations” would harm it.

Microsoft declined to comment.

The closed-door nature of the trial was made clear Thursday when the Justice Department called John Giannandrea, an Apple executive and former search executive at Google, to testify about the importance of scaling for search engines and his guidance on Apple’s search efforts.

Even before Mr. Giannandrea began answering questions, Justice Department senior trial attorney Kenneth Dintzer said Apple had expressed a strong preference for testimony on almost every topic to take place in closed session. Then, less than 15 minutes after Mr. Giannandrea took the stand, Judge Mehta called it a day.

The Apple manager returned to the stand on Friday morning and the meeting began behind closed doors. More than four hours later, Mr. Giannandrea left the courtroom with Apple lawyers without the trial opening.

Matt Stoller, the research director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly think tank, said the secrecy “undermines the legitimacy of our legal system.” His group tried to persuade the court to set up a conference call for the hearing, but failed.

Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University who covered antitrust policy in the Biden administration and has written opinion essays for the Times, said government lawyers have sometimes agreed to seal information to advance a case.

“These things are warfare,” he said. “You want to get the information, and you don’t internalize the cost to the public or to the reporters.”

But Mr. Wu noted that there was an inherent irony in Google’s push to limit disclosure.

“It’s ironic that a company sucks up all of our information and knows everything about us, and we’re not allowed to know anything about them,” he said. “We deserve a closer look at them.”

David McCabe contributed to the reporting.