The issue of deleted chat messages came up in multiple federal antitrust trials against Google.
Three prominent advocacy groups are turning up the heat on Google, calling for a state investigation into one of its top executives. The American Economic Liberties Project, Check My Ads, and the Tech Oversight Project are urging the State Bar of California to investigate Kent Walker, Google’s President of Global Affairs and a longtime member of the Bar. The groups allege that Walker played a pivotal role in coaching Google to engage in the “widespread and illegal destruction of records,” which were central to several ongoing federal trials, including high-profile antitrust cases.
The advocacy groups outline their concerns. The crux of the issue lies in a 2008 memo Walker sent to Google employees while he was serving as general counsel. Dubbed the “Walker Memo,” this document recently surfaced during the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) antitrust trial against Google, one of many cases in which the tech giant has been accused of withholding potentially incriminating evidence. According to the letter, this memo marked the beginning of a secretive culture within Google, advising employees to limit the retention of chat messages—potentially pivotal in ongoing legal proceedings.
The Walker Memo: A Turning Point in Google’s Secrecy?
The Walker Memo, cited during the DOJ’s case, explained the rationale for Google’s decision to switch its default setting for internal chats from “history on” to “history off.” At the time, Walker justified the change by referencing “several significant legal and regulatory matters” facing the company. The DOJ, however, claims this policy shift signaled a deliberate attempt to conceal information that might be used as evidence in court—a move that, they argue, helped Google shield critical discussions from legal scrutiny.
For its part, Google has dismissed the memo as irrelevant to its current policies, stating that the document was written more than a decade before the DOJ’s investigation began and long before any legal obligations to preserve evidence existed. In court filings, Google argued that the memo actually instructed employees to save relevant chat messages if they were subject to a litigation hold—precisely the opposite of an intent to destroy evidence.
But critics aren’t buying it. According to the advocacy groups, Google employees understood the memo as a directive to remove potentially discoverable information, rather than preserve it. They claim that Walker’s guidance, which included advising employees to invoke attorney-client privilege liberally, further contributed to an environment where key documents and communications were intentionally hidden from view.
Google’s Ongoing Legal Troubles
Google’s record-keeping—or lack thereof—has become a recurring theme in court battles. In at least three high-profile trials, including the Epic Games lawsuit and two separate DOJ antitrust cases, Google’s opponents have argued that the company’s failure to maintain chat histories and other internal communications should be viewed as a red flag. In one instance, government attorneys pointed to documents marked “privileged and confidential,” questioning why lawyers had been looped into email threads that didn’t appear to warrant legal oversight. While Google employees have maintained that the “history off” chats were used for casual conversations, some admitted that substantive business discussions also took place in these forums.
Though Google’s practices have drawn sharp criticism, the courts have been slow to issue severe consequences. In the Epic v. Google case, Judge James Donato allowed jurors to assume that Google had deleted important documents but stopped short of suggesting that the missing records were intentionally harmful to the company’s defense. Google lost the case and is currently appealing the decision.
Similarly, in the DOJ’s search antitrust trial, Judge Amit Mehta warned Google that while sanctions were not being imposed at the time, the company “may not be so lucky” in future cases if these practices continue.
Advocacy Groups Call for Disciplinary Action
The advocacy groups behind the push for accountability are not content with these judicial warnings. They are now calling for the State Bar of California to investigate Walker and any other attorneys at Google or its outside counsel who were aware of the policies surrounding chat retention and document preservation. According to the letter, Walker’s failure to take “affirmative steps to preserve and safeguard relevant evidence” represents a serious ethical breach, one that violates both California State Law and Walker’s obligations as a member of the Bar.
At the very least, the groups argue, Walker’s actions demonstrate a pattern of unethical behavior unbecoming of an attorney. “The behavior is plainly unethical and violates both California State Law and Walker’s ethical obligations,” the letter states, urging the Bar to “take swift action to penalize Mr. Walker to the full extent of the law.”
The possible consequences for Walker—and any other attorneys implicated in this probe—could be severe. The State Bar has the authority to impose disciplinary actions ranging from suspension to disbarment, though such measures are relatively rare. In fiscal year 2023, the Bar opened 17,000 cases but only disciplined 243 attorneys, with 76 facing disbarment.
Google’s Defense: Transparency Amid Growing Scrutiny
Amid the growing scrutiny, Google has remained adamant that it has complied with legal obligations. In a statement, Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels said, “We take seriously our obligations to preserve and produce relevant documents. Our legal team has for years responded comprehensively to inquiries and litigation. In the DOJ cases alone, we produced millions of documents, including emails, chat messages, and other materials.”
Still, the pressure is mounting. With advocacy groups calling for harsher penalties, Google’s legal and regulatory troubles are far from over. Whether the California State Bar will take action against Walker remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the tech giant’s record-keeping practices are likely to face continued scrutiny as more cases make their way through the courts.
As Google navigates this complex legal landscape, the question remains—will this latest push for accountability finally lead to serious consequences for the tech titan?
