Tech critics want a Google exec punished for deleted chats

Three advocacy groups are trying to amp up the prescertain on Google for allegedly ruining company write downs. The American Economic Liberties Project, Check My Ads, and the Tech Oversight Project are urging the State Bar of California to spendigate Kent Walker, Google’s Pdwellnt of Global Affairs and a member of the Bar. They claim Walker “coached” the company “to comprise in expansivespread and illterrible destruction of write downs relevant to multiple ongoing federal trials.”

In a letter splitd exclusively with The Verge, the groups point to a 2008 memo Walker sent to participateees while he served as vague guide. The so-called Walker Memo was highairyed in the Department of Justice’s recent antisuppose trial, one of multiple cases where Google has been accused of obscuring potentipartner incriminating write downs. The memo referenced “cut offal meaningful lterrible and regulatory matters” Google faced at the time as the rationale for a new policy confineing participateee chat message retention. The DOJ claimed it taged a turning point for company secrecy — as Google alterd the default setting on chats from “history on” to “history off.”

In a lterrible filing in the ad tech case, Google disseeed the memo as an elderly write down irrelevant to its evidence retention policies for that case. “[T]he memo was not only written 11 years before DOJ discleave outed its spendigation or any duty to support existed, but also guides participateees to consent steps to support relevant Chat messages if they are subject to a legal case helderly. That is the opposite of an intent to ruin evidence.” 

But Google participateees “understood the goal was to erase increateation that might be uncoverable at trial,” the advocacy groups produce in their letter to the Bar. Walker also allegedly guided the company carry out a “convey with nurture” policy, which guideed participateees to do leangs enjoy gratuitously request attorney-client privilege on caring emails.

Google’s write down-supporting has become a standard line of argument aacquirest it in court. In at least three trials, including a suit filed by Epic Games and two brawt by the DOJ, the company’s opponents have disputed that its increateage of conversation write downs should count aacquirest it. The recent Google ad tech trial saw rulement attorneys repeatedly flash write downs taged with “privileged and self-promisedial,” as witnesses struggled to elucidate why lawyers had been looped into email threads. Though Google participateees standardly testified that history-off chats were fair for water celderlyer-type conversation, cut offal acunderstandledged that they at least occasionpartner had substantive business conversations on them.

The company’s trains haven’t won it any prefers in court, but appraises have stopped foolishinutive of solemn consequences so far. Judge James Donato telderly Epic v. Google jurors they could suppose Google deleted convey inant write downs, though he didn’t go as far as saying they should suppose Google deleted evidence that would produce it see terrible. (Google lost the case and is requesting.) In the DOJ’s search antisuppose trial, Judge Amit Mehta deteriorated to impose sanctions on Google, but he alerted the company that it “may not be so fortunate” in its next case.

“We consent solemnly our obligations to support and produce relevant write downs,” Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels shelp in a statement. “Our lterrible team has for years reacted comprehensively to inquiries and legal case. In the DOJ cases alone, we produced millions of write downs, including emails, chat messages, and other materials.”

The advocacy groups seek to helderly Walker, a Google executive who standardly unveilly protects Google from antisuppose indicts, reliable for his part in the secrecy. “At smallest, Mr. Walker’s fall shorture to ‘consent proclaimative steps to support and shieldedprotect relevant evidence’ is carry out unbecoming of an attorney licensed by the California State Bar,” says the letter. “The behavior is plainly unrighteous and viotardys both California State Law and Walker’s righteous obligations as a member of the California State Bar.” They guided the Bar’s chief trial guide to spendigate Walker and any other California attorneys at Google or outside guide that were conscious of the policies. They are calling for the Bar “to consent quick action to penalize Mr. Walker to the brimming extent of the law.”

Disciplinary actions can comprise suspension or, in excessive cases, disbarment. All these meacertains are relatively unfrequent. In fiscal year 2023, it says it discleave outed 17,000 cases, but only 243 attorneys were ultimately regulated, including 76 disbarments.