The US Department of Justice raised objections on Monday regarding the exclusion of the public from certain discussions in the court about Google's pricing of online advertising. This issue lies at the core of the ongoing antitrust trial in Washington.

The government aims to prove that Alphabet's Google violated antitrust laws to maintain its dominant position in online search. Google's dominance in search has led to a significant increase in advertising revenue, propelling the company to a valuation of $1 trillion.

David Dahlquist, speaking on behalf of the government, highlighted a redacted document that included a brief exchange about Google's pricing for search advertising.

Dahlquist argued before Judge Amit Mehta, who will make the final decision in the case, that information like this should not be redacted. He stated that it is of public interest as it forms a crucial part of the DOJ's case against Google.

Representing Google, John Schmidtlein requested that discussions about pricing be conducted in closed sessions, which would require excluding the public and reporters from the courtroom.

Redacting information related to market share, business strategies, and pricing is not uncommon in merger trials. Katherine Van Dyck, a seasoned litigator and senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, explained that companies often prefer to keep such information hidden, while government lawyers focused on winning the case may not prioritize over-sealing.

Also Read, U.S. Antitrust Regulator to Target Amazon's Marketplace - Bloomberg Reports

Van Dyck's organization advocated for the trial to be conducted through telephone lines, as was done for pre-trial hearings due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, Judge Mehta denied this motion. Van Dyck believes that the judge's decision was misguided, asserting that courts need to adapt their rules and keep up with modern technology, especially in cases of significant public interest.

For example, a Verizon executive named Brian Higgins testified to the company's decision to pre-install Google's Chrome browser with Google Search on its mobile phones.

Although Higgins' testimony lasted for approximately 30 minutes, it was closed to the public for the following two hours. It remains uncertain whether he was questioned about Google's payments to Verizon as the details were not disclosed.

The government claims that these annual payments amount to $10 billion, benefiting Google with prominent default positions on smartphones and other devices.

Throughout the trial, Google's defense hinges on the argument that its substantial market share is a result of the quality of its product, rather than any illegal activities aimed at monopolizing certain aspects of its business.

The outcome of this antitrust battle could fundamentally impact the future of the internet, currently dominated by four major players that have faced scrutiny from Congress and antitrust enforcers since the Trump administration. Companies, including Google and Amazon.com, have defended themselves by emphasizing the free or affordable nature of their services.

If Google is found guilty of breaking the law, Judge Mehta, presiding over the case, will determine the appropriate resolution. This could involve ordering Google to cease the identified illegal practices or potentially forcing the company to sell certain assets.

Also Read, Alaska Files Lawsuit Against the U.S. Government Challenging Tongass Forest Protection Measures