Google’s Internal Culture of Evidence Deletion #

In 2008, Google faced antitrust scrutiny over an advertising deal with Yahoo. To address concerns over internal communications, executives sent a confidential memo to employees. They advised caution in written communications, asking them to avoid speculation and sarcasm, and to “think twice” before discussing “hot topics.” The company’s instant messaging tool was set to “off the record” to automatically delete conversations, aiming to minimize potentially incriminating evidence.

This memo was the beginning of a longstanding campaign to make deletion a default practice at Google. The campaign was characterized by the use of attorney-client privilege as a protective shield and the imposition of internal communication restraints. Throughout antitrust trials, details emerged about how Google encouraged employees to label documents as “attorney-client privilege” and include lawyers in email chains even when no legal advice was sought.

While companies facing litigation must preserve documents, Google exempted instant messaging from this requirement except when employees were directly involved in a lawsuit. Mostly, employees did not retain chat histories, aligning with Google’s broader attempt to limit internal documentation.

Across courtroom battles, documents revealed that Google’s culture aimed to prevent incriminating disclosures. This behavior brought criticism from judges involved in various antitrust cases, who highlighted Google’s practices as suppressive of relevant evidence.

Judicial officials expressed concern over document retention policies, noting that “an awful lot of evidence has likely been destroyed.” Despite Google’s efforts to comply with document preservation obligations, their practices created an impression of deceit. “They think of the word ‘privilege’ as similar to ‘confidential,’” overusing legal protections to shield documents from becoming public.

As the company faced antitrust challenges over its dominance in search and advertising technology, the court observed that Google had effectively trained employees not to create “bad” evidence. “Talk in the dark, they insisted over and over, rather than in the light.”

Efforts to work around documentation requirements led Googlers to use obsolete technology like fax machines and secure messaging apps, reinforcing the desire to keep certain discussions off the record. However, recent regulatory mandates clarified that off-the-record chats must still be preserved in litigation, prompting Google to change its procedures, ensuring internal chats are now auto-saved.

For Google, the longstanding habit of minimizing official records continues to persist, even as regulatory pressure mounts.