How the Harris campaign’s ties to Big Tech could undermine Google’s antitrust efforts

Kamala Harris’ campaign’s close ties to big tech companies have raised concerns that Google could back away from a proposed split of its search empire if she is elected president, The Post has learned.

Harris is close to Paul Weiss, the white-shoe law firm that is leading Google’s defense in another major antitrust case involving its digital advertising business. Karen Dunn, the firm’s lead attorney, is helping Harris prepare for the debate. Similarly, the firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, is reportedly leading a “Lawyers’ Committee for Kamala Harris” to raise money for her White House bid.

The former U.S. senator from California is also leaning heavily on Eric Holder, who led the vetting of her potential vice presidential candidates, and her brother-in-law Tony West, a Silicon Valley ally who took a leave of absence from his position as general counsel at Uber to help her campaign. Both are reportedly on a short list of potential picks for Cabinet positions in a Harris administration.

“It’s obviously dramatic optically,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project. “This will be a crossroads for the Harris administration, which could become clear even before her inauguration if we see these figures being assigned to key positions in the White House or the Justice Department.”

The Justice Department is likely to press for Google’s liquidation after Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the company has an illegal monopoly on online search. While Mehta will consider potential remedies starting Sept. 6, the litigation will continue into the next president’s first term.

The risk of a victory for Harris — who as president would have the power to appoint antitrust leaders at the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission — is that pro-tech advisers could lobby behind the scenes for more lenient treatment of Google, concerned experts told The Post.

“They can pressure (Deputy Attorney General) Lisa Monaco to settle,” one well-connected tech policy expert told The Post. “Say, ‘OK, we’ve proven our point, go get Google’s best deal, make sure it has three commas, and let’s end this.’ And nothing will change.”

While serving as attorney general under the tech-friendly Obama administration in 2010, Holder blocked then-Justice Department antitrust chief Christine Varney from opening an investigation into Google for monopolizing search, a Justice Department source said. The FTC instead investigated and did not prosecute.

A Harris campaign spokesman declined to comment. Representatives for Paul Weiss, Eric Holder and the DOJ did not respond to requests for comment.

Donald Trump — whose Justice Department first brought antitrust proceedings against Google in 2020 — is much more likely to seek significant repression of the company, according to Bill Kovacic, the Republican-appointed FTC chairman in 2008-09.

“I feel like Trump distrusts and dislikes the tech sector more than she does,” Kovacic said. “Trump feels like all the tech leaders prevented him from winning in 2020. He may want to punish them by forcing a split.”

In recent interviews, Trump has called Google “illegal,” said the company “needs to be careful” and said he “has a feeling that Google is about to be shut down.”

Makan Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division in the Trump administration, planned from the outset to break up Google, a source close to the Justice Department said.

Harris has not yet made her views on tech antitrust clear. In a speech Friday detailing her economic platform, Harris pushed controversial plans to lower grocery prices and housing costs but did not address whether she plans to crack down on Big Tech monopolies.

She has received donations from Google in the past, and during a 2010 meeting with company employees, she reportedly portrayed herself as an ally of the tech industry.

Experts say advisers who oppose major antitrust actions do not necessarily need to hold government positions to have influence on antitrust issues.

Dunn, a longtime Democratic operative, was once considered a candidate to head the Justice Department’s antitrust division — a position that later went to current head Jonathan Kanter. She also helped Attorney General Merrick Garland prepare for his 2021 Senate confirmation hearings.

In addition to her work for Google, Dunn has represented Apple and Uber in high-profile legal battles.

“Google is paying Karen Dunn handsomely to get away with it — preferably by settling a slap on the wrist — so it’s concerning that she has so much access to Vice President Harris, Garland, Monaco and their teams,” said one Capitol Hill veteran, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.

Paul Weiss employees have donated a whopping $1.46 million to Democrats this cycle — more than any other law firm, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. The firm also employs multiple former members of the Biden-Harris Justice Department.

Still, a potential Harris administration would be limited in its ability to influence the Justice Department’s handling of Google’s cases, even if it were inclined to approach big tech companies more favorably.

According to Hauser, any attempt to interfere in the affairs of the Justice Department could be met with a strong public reaction from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

This became evident earlier this year when Democratic major donor Reid Hoffman sparked outrage by publicly calling on Harris to fire FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan if elected.

“I don’t imagine the Harris administration has the will or the backbone to pull off a ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ at the antitrust division,” Hauser said. “It would be, ‘Ah-ha, big donors are making you do it.’ That’s a catastrophic scandal that the new administration has to get over.”

Google has already said it will appeal a federal judge’s decision in the search case, meaning any penalties in the search lawsuit will likely take years to be imposed.

Mehta found that Google’s practice of paying billions of dollars to partners like Apple to ensure that Google search is enabled by default on most smartphones has limited competition.

DOJ lawyers could press Mehta to order Google to sell parts of its business, such as its Android operating system, Chrome web browser and AdWords advertising platform, Bloomberg reported. Other options include ending Google’s default contracts or forcing it to share data with rival search engines.

A separate, major Justice Department antitrust case involving Google’s alleged monopoly on digital advertising technology is also set to go to trial in September—another defeat could similarly upend the company’s business model.