Here are edited excerpts of our conversation.
Q: Does the state Senate’s 47-1 vote for SB 5199 suggest the Legislature will approve it?
A: It seems like there’s a clear path.
Q: The bipartisanship was striking.
A: I believe it underscores the importance of the issue and the understanding of a cross section of politicians that need to do something to address what’s going on with local journalism.
Q: Why is it important for Washington to join the Google case? Some say the monopoly concerns are overstated.
A: My guess is those who feel like the monopoly concerns are overstated are not suffering at the hands of Google effectively having a monopoly in this area. I try to keep it simple: Is the legal case good and are Washingtonians being harmed? The answers to those two questions in my mind were yes and yes. That’s just what we focus on. I don’t really worry about, hey, what others think about it.
Q: Is it time for a new approach to antitrust enforcement and is the Google case the vehicle to explore that?
A: There’s been a definite evolution in my 10 years as attorney general in more and more of my colleagues getting interested in this antitrust work. More AGs are willing to bring these cases, invest in growing their antitrust division, and use tools that states have, partner with the DOJ or file their own antitrust lawsuits. That’s all to the good, to protect consumers.
Q: Are AGs doing this because the feds haven’t been as aggressive as they should have been?
A: Yes, from the way I look at it. There’s a growing awareness of how important these cases are for the people. AGs need to have skin in the game, we need to be part of this litigation, we need to be bringing our own cases. Grocery store mergers, you name it, there’s a lot going on out there that have just profound implications for the people we represent.
Q: Will people understand the harms? There are many dots to connect.
A: I don’t want to get into the legal side but what I would say is it’s a case where the “elevator speech” is a little bit more complicated. I would agree that that is a challenge. It’s our job, working with our colleagues, to make that case before the judge but I’m confident we’ll be able to do that and that we have a strong case.
Q: DOJ leaders talked about Google harming publishers and content creators. Is helping local news part of the goal?
A: Oh yeah, it’s part of the goal for sure. It’s critical for support for newspapers creating content that we all depend upon and the shared information. I have a big interest in that issue and the future of newspapers in our state. Yes, it’s more than fair to say that is a motivating factor for me in getting involved.
Q: Newspapers benefit from Google services, but because it’s dominant we have no choice and as alleged, it’s rigged and we don’t get a fair deal. How do you explain that?
A: Folks understand things can be complicated — there can be a benefit with a certain industry or a business like Google — but also understand at the same time there can be violations of our antitrust law that really harm advertisers, newspapers, consumers. That’s something courts understand, judges understand, the public can grasp.
Q: Some say this is anti business. How do you respond?
A: I don’t care who you are or how big your business is, you’ve got to follow the law. You’ve got to have competition, it has to be a fair marketplace. To me it’s pro business, it’s healthy for our system to have competition, and it’s certainly better for consumers.
Q: Google laid people off and has new competition from Bing. Does that weaken the case?
A: I don’t see that as being a problem, no. The judge is going to be focused on the antitrust law, the facts of the case.
Q: What’s at the end of the rainbow for plaintiffs?
A: Better competition. The end result being more revenue for entities like newspapers, for folks who are right now adversely impacted by Google’s dominance in the marketplace in this area.
Q: Are you concerned about the impact on Google jobs?
A: I hear that, I’m not minimizing that by any stretch of the imagination. But you have to follow the rules. I believe that Google can be very profitable and provide lots of jobs for Washingtonians and follow the law at the same time.
Q: Would suing Google hurt or help someone’s chances running for governor?
A: I’m not smart enough to figure that out. We just have so much litigation going on you can’t stop and worry about that.
Brier Dudley on Twitter: @BrierDudley. is editor of The Seattle Times Save the Free Press Initiative. Its weekly newsletter: https://st.news/FreePressNewsletter. Reach him at bdudley@seattletimes.com