The State Of Texas v. Google, LLC

Background

The state plaintiffs submitted a Second Amended Complaint for sealing. A public version had redactions concerning Google’s advertising businesses, an alleged agreement between Google and Facebook, and the names and email addresses of certain non-party Google employees. The plaintiffs stated that they did not object to filing the entire complaint publicly and had made the redactions only to comply with Google’s confidentiality designations.

Google sought to keep some, but not all, of the redactions. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a group identifying themselves as scholars, practitioners, and privacy advocates filed submissions supporting unsealing.

Legal standard

The court applied a three-step test. It first determined whether the filing was a “judicial document,” meaning a filing relevant to the court’s work and useful in the legal process. It then considered the strength of the public-access presumption and weighed any legitimate privacy or confidentiality interests against that presumption.

The court held that a complaint is a judicial document and that complaints are ordinarily open to the public. Because the complaint directly concerned the state plaintiffs’ allegations and the court’s judicial process, the presumption of access was strong. Redactions could still be justified by specific privacy interests, including protection of confidential commercial information or the privacy of innocent third parties.

Rulings on the redactions

The court denied Google’s sealing motion as to paragraphs 16, 40, 62, 63, 110, 126, 139, 155, 178, 179, 182, 240, 252, and 255. These paragraphs contained internal estimates and percentage ranges concerning advertising commissions, publisher revenues, Google’s fees, the performance of Google’s advertising tools, sales on Google’s ad exchange, and revenue connected to certain business practices. The court found that Google’s evidence described possible commercial harm in general terms and did not identify a specific privacy interest or concrete harm that outweighed public access.

The court granted Google’s motion as to paragraph 239. That paragraph contained technical information about Google’s predictive-modeling process and how its advertising products calculate bid prices. The court found credible Google’s evidence that competitors and business counterparts could use the information to replicate proprietary features and harm Google’s business.

The court denied Google’s motion as to paragraphs 218, 219, 222, 224, 225, 231, 232, and 234. Paragraph 218 contained an internal statement about Google’s reason for entering the agreement with Facebook. The other paragraphs described terms of the agreement, including part of the agreement shown in a screenshot. The court found that the public-access presumption outweighed Google’s generalized concern that disclosure could give Facebook or other business partners negotiating leverage. The court also noted that the agreement was executed in September 2018 and that Facebook had not submitted a claim of privacy interest in the redacted text.

The court granted Google’s motion as to paragraphs 123, 185, 192, 200, 205, and 241. These paragraphs redacted the names, job titles, and email addresses of Google employees quoted in the complaint. The court found that the employees’ privacy interests outweighed public access because their identifying and contact information had no apparent bearing on the dispute.

Disposition

The court granted Google’s sealing motion as to paragraphs 123, 185, 192, 200, 205, 239, and 241, and denied it as to paragraphs 16, 40, 62, 63, 110, 126, 139, 155, 178, 179, 182, 218, 219, 222, 224, 225, 231, 232, 234, 240, 252, and 255. The court directed the plaintiffs to publicly file a version of the Second Amended Complaint consistent with the order by October 22, 2021. Judge P. Castel also directed the Clerk to terminate Google’s motion and the related letter-motion.