ogle's Silicon Tower

Google-Funded Speakers Dominate Key 2016 Policy Conferences

 

 

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

.


.  
I 

Google Transparency Project

.

LUL. ?.6192?
- . ?b . 

if;


CAMPAI

ACCO 
I 

Introduction
Google's influence machine extends beyond its courtship of politicians and government officials.
A new analysis by Campaign for Accountability shows academics and experts funded by Google
have played a major role at academic and government conferences, debating some of the
company's core issues, such as privacy and antitrust laws. Nearly all of them failed to disclose
their financial ties to conference attendees.
CfA compiled information on participants at three major policy conferences held this year about
privacy and antitrust issues that ostensibly were organized to "bring together a diverse group of
stakeholders."1 In fact, CfA found that many of the speakers at the conferences--arranged by the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), George Mason University (GMU), and Princeton
University--had financial ties to Google.
Specifically:
?
?
?
?

More than half of the speakers at the FTC's PrivacyCon (22 of 41) were funded by
Google, either directly through grants or indirectly through their institutions.
More than half of the research papers presented at PrivacyCon (11 of 19) had an author
with financial ties to Google.2 Only one disclosed the Google funding. 3
Four of five speakers at George Mason University's panel on the global antitrust
investigations of Google received funding from Google. 4
Five of seven panelists at Princeton University's broadband privacy workshop received
support from Google.5

A review of the conferences found that the Google-funded academics are playing an outsized
role in the debate over the US government's policy on internet privacy, a rapidly evolving area
and an existential issue for Google. They are also often at the epicenter of policy research on
antitrust issues in the age of digital platforms, another issue in which Google has a major stake.
In some cases, researchers have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Google and
helped the US government formulate policies with significant implications for the company's
bottom line. Lorrie Cranor, the FTC's chief technologist,6 for instance, has benefitted from nearly
$850,000 in funding from Google --including nearly $350,000 in personal research awards and
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon.
The authors were funded either directly or through an institution with which the author is affiliated. Nine had an
author that had been directly funded by Google.
3
Mathias Lecuyer, Riley Spahn, Yannis Spiliopoulos, Augustin Chaintreau, Roxana Geambasu, and Daniel Hsu,
Sunlight: Fine-grained Targeting Detection at Scale with Statistical Confidence, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/10/00061-98105.pdf.
4
The speakers were funded either directly or through an institution with which they are affiliated.
5
Id.
6
https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies/lorrie-faith-cranor.
1
2

$400,000 shared with two other Carnegie Mellon researchers. 7 Notably, the FTC's previous
chief technologist, Ed Felten, also received Google funding in 2010 for privacy research while at
Princeton.8
Cranor played an important role at the FTC's conference: She co-authored one of the papers
accepted for submission at PrivacyCon and gave the closing remarks at the conference. 9 She also
co-authored, with a Google employee and others, a second paper that was submitted to the
conference, though not accepted for presentation. 10
Many of the researchers are respected in their field and there is no way to know for sure whether
Google's funding influenced their policy positions, or by how much. But the usual bulwark
against such concerns -- the requirement that academics disclose their funding so the public can
gauge possible conflicts of interest -- was absent from all-but-one of the papers presented.
Without such disclosure, the findings raise serious concerns that the researchers and watchdogs
upon which users rely to protect their privacy are being influenced by Google's funding.
At the FTC conference, many Google-funded academics adopted positions that were favorable to
the company. Several argued against government regulation to protect users' privacy, saying the
technology sector could effectively police itself. Others were supportive of privacy positions that
could help Google pursue new businesses.
Catherine Tucker, for example, cautioned that requiring "informed consent" -- a medical
standard requiring patients to affirmatively grant permission for a procedure based on a clear
understanding of the possible consequences -- may discourage patients from undergoing genetic
testing.11
The issue is important and timely for Google, which has launched several initiatives with
government health agencies to begin collecting patients' genetic data. 12 In one such initiative in
the UK, the genetic data has been shared with Google using "implied consent" -- a looser
standard that does not require hospitals to seek patients' express permission. 13

https://www.cmu.edu/epp/cvs/cranor-cv.pdf.
https://research.googleblog.com/2010/02/announcing-googles-focused-research.html; https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2010/11/ftc-names-edward-w-felten-agencys-chief-technologist-eileen.
9
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon.
10
Lorrie Faith Cranor, et. al., A Design Space for Effective Privacy Notices, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2015/10/09/comment-00038.
11
Amalia R. Miller and Catherine Tucker, Privacy Protection, Personalized Medicine and Genetic Testing, July 19,
2015, available at https://www.ftc.gov/es/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/09/00010-97509.pdf.
12
Alistair Barr, New Moonshot Project: the Human Body, The Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2014, available at
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-collect-data-to-define-healthy-human-1406246214.
13
Subhajit Basu, Should the NHS share patient data with Google's DeepMind?, Wired, May 11, 2016, available at
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/nhs-deepmind-google-data-sharing.
7
8

2

Tucker also suggested at the conference that technology companies could solve privacy problems
by themselves, without the need for government regulation. 14 She did not disclose to the
audience that she had received more than $150,000 from Google. 15
James Cooper, an associate professor of law at George Mason University, 16 participated in both
the FTC’s PrivacyCon and a GMU panel in February with two FTC officials titled “Antitrust
Lessons for Privacy Regulators.”17 Cooper’s program at GMU has received at least $762,000 in
donations from Google and internal emails published by the media showed Google lobbyists
trying to place an op-ed he wrote in newspapers and suggesting panelists for a conference he
organized.18
Among the academics Google suggested: Catherine Tucker. 19
The revelations did not deter FTC organizers from inviting him to their conference two months
later. There, Cooper poured cold water on another researcher’s findings that Google engaged in
discriminatory user targeting, in violation of its own policies. 20 “Is there actually some sort of
evidence of harm here?” Cooper asked, without disclosing his Google funding. 21
Google has also funded another speaker invited to speak at the conference, Geoffrey Manne. 22
There, he argued forcefully against FTC privacy regulation. “[M]erely identifying a problem isn't
a sufficient basis for regulating to solve it, nor does the existence of a possible solution mean that
that solution should be mandated,” he said. 23
He did not disclose Google’s funding to the audience.
Nick Feamster, another participant in several recent conferences, has received $1.6 million in
Google research awards.24 Feamster co-authored a paper presented at the FTC’s PrivacyCon 25
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/776191/2016.01.14_privacycon_final_transcript. pdf,
(P. 245).
15
http://cetucker.scripts.mit.edu/docs/cv.pdf.
16
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/cooper_jamesc.
17
http://www.masonlec.org/events/event/317-george-mason-law-review-th-annual-antitrust-symposium-antitrustinterconnected-world.
18
David Dayen, Google’s Insidious Shadow Lobbying: How the Internet Giant is Bankrolling Friendly
Academics—and Skirting Federal Investigations, Salon, November 24, 2015, available at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/24/
googles_insidious_shadow_lobbying_how_the_internet_giant_is_bankrolling_friendly_academics_and_skirting_fed
eral_investigations/.
19
Id.
20
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/776191/2016.01.14_privacycon_final_transcript. pdf,
(P. 179-180).
21
Before joining GMU, Mr. Cooper worked at the FTC for several years, including serving as the acting director at
the Office of Policy Planning. See http://masonlec.org/about/498.
22
Chris O’Brien, Microsoft and Google battle for influence in the policy shadows, The Mercury News, July 27,
2012, available at http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21172515/obrien-microsoft-and-google-battleinfluence-policy-shadows.
23
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/videos/privacycon-part-5/ftc_privacycon__transcript_segment_5.pdf.
24
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~feamster/cv/cv-jan2016.pdf.
25
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon.
14

3

 and was a panelist at Princeton’s broadband privacy workshop. 26 He did not disclose the
significant funding from Google at either event. 27

These findings suggest that Google attempts to secure favorable government policies on issues
important to its business by funding academics who support the company’s issues and attend
major conferences on relevant policy areas. That is in addition to Google’s unfettered access to
the White House and its practice of hiring government officials, two tactics recently explored by
CfA’s Google Transparency Project. 28
https://citp.princeton.edu/event/citpcdt-workshop-understanding-technical-aspects-of-broadband-privacy/.
Mr. Feamster disclosed the Google funding in his CV, but he did not disclose it in the paper submitted to the
conference. See Id.
28
http://googletransparencyproject.org/.
26
27

4

 1. Federal Trade Commission’s PrivacyCon, Jan. 14, 2016

Half of the panelists at the FTC’s PrivacyCon were Google-funded. Only one disclosed the
conflict.
On January 14, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission hosted PrivacyCon, billed as an effort to
“bring together a diverse group of stakeholders…to discuss the latest research and trends related
to consumer privacy and data security.” 29
The interest was not just academic. The conference responded to the FTC’s desire to “inform
policymaking with research,” according to Cranor,30 and “help shine a light on privacy and
security gaps,” according to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez.
“Technology-savvy researchers can also increase transparency about algorithms underlying the
services that consumers use,” Ramirez wrote when announcing the event. 31

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/01/privacycon.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/videos/privacycon-part-5/ftc_privacycon__transcript_segment_5.pdf.
31
Edith Ramirez, US Tech Policy Needs Real Tech Research Behind It, Ars Technica, August 28, 2015, available at
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/op-ed-us-tech-policy-needs-real-tech-research-behind-it-ftcchairwoman-says/.
29
30

5

 Unbeknownst to the audience, however, a large proportion of those researchers were funded by
Google, a company that has a major stake in the outcome of the FTC’s policy deliberations, and
whose conduct is policed by the agency.
A review by Campaign for Accountability found:






More than half the discussion panelists (22 of 41) received Google funding directly or
indirectly through the universities or nonprofits where they work currently or have
worked in the past.
A majority of the studies accepted for presentation at PrivacyCon (11 of 19) were either
funded directly by Google or authored by academics who have previously been funded
directly by Google or employed by universities or trade associations that have been
funded by Google.
One study presented at the conference was co-authored by a Google employee. 32
Only one of the studies’ authors disclosed their Google funding. 33

Nine of the research papers accepted by PrivacyCon had at least one author that has been directly
funded by Google through initiatives like the Google
Focused Research Grant or Google Faculty Research Awards
programs. Another two received indirect support through
their institutions.
Google doesn’t disclose the amount granted to the
researchers it directly funds and, for the most part, neither do
the academics. However, one PrivacyCon submission came
from a researcher who had received an award of nearly
$80,000.34
Three Google-award recipients who presented at the
conference were Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of
information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon
University, Norman Sadeh, and Lorrie Cranor, Carnegie
Mellon professors of computer science. In January 2016,
Cranor became the FTC’s chief technologist. 35

Sooel Son, Daehyeok Kim, and Vitaly Shmatikov, What Mobile Ads Know About Mobile Users, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/09/00006-97209.pdf.
33
Id.
34
https://roxanageambasu.github.io/public/geambasu_cv.pdf.
35
Andrea Peterson, The FTC is Getting a New Chief Technologies: Carnegie Mellon’s Lorrie Cranor, The
Washington Post, December 3, 30215, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theswitch/wp/2015/12/03/the-ftc-is-getting-a-new-chief-technologist-carnegie-mellons-lorrie-cranor/.
32

6

 Alessandro Acquisti, part of a trio that
got $400,000 from Google, speaking at
PrivacyCon

Acquisti, Sadeh and Cranor were part of a trio at CMU
that received a $400,000 focused research award from
Google for work on internet privacy. 36 Acquisti presented
a paper entitled "Who Benefits from Targeted
Advertising?" while Sadeh presented a paper, coauthored with Acqusti, entitled "To Deny or Not to Deny:
A Personalized Privacy Assistant for Mobile App
Permissions."37
Neither disclosed their Google funding.38

In all, Acquisti was either the primary author or co-author
of four papers accepted for submission by PrivacyCon39 while Sadeh was the primary or coauthor of three papers accepted for submission. 40 Cranor gave the conference's closing remarks
and was a co-author of one paper accepted for submission.41
She also submitted a proposal to present a paper co-authored by a Google employee. 42
Since 2010, Google has made grants totaling almost $850,000 to Cranor and her colleagues. 43 In
addition to a $70,000 "unrestricted gift" and a $400,000 Google research grant shared with
Acquisti and Sadeh, Cranor received a $178,920 "unrestricted gift" from Google in 2011 as part
of the company's Google Buzz settlement. Under the terms of the so-called cy pres settlement,
Google was able to direct its funds to groups and individuals selected by the company. 44
At PrivacyCon, Acquisti argued that technology companies could adopt "privacy-enhancing
technologies" (PETs) to avoid government regulation. "[P]rivate sector firms...may be proactive
in deploying PETs, anticipating otherwise regulatory intervention so that they can still do much
of what they're doing now, but in a more privacy-preserving manner," he said. "I do believe that
Sabrina Porter, Focused Research Awards Grant Professors $2 Million for Study, The Tartan, February 15, 2010,
available at https://thetartan.org/2010/2/15/news/researchawards.
37
Veronica Marotta, Kaifu Zhang, and Alessandro Acquisti, Who Benefits from Targeted Advertising, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/10/00037-100312.pdf; Norman Sadeh,
Alessandro Acquisti, et. al., To Deny, or Not to Deny: A Personalized Privacy Assistant for Mobile App
Permissions, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/776191/nsadeh_paper.pdf.
38
The authors of the papers did not disclose the funding in the papers. See Id.
39
Norman Sadeh, Alessandro Acquisti, et. al., Towards Usable Privacy Policies: Semi-automatically Extracting
Data Practices from Websites' Privacy Policies, available at https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2014/posters/soups2014_
posters-paper20.pdf; Alessandro Acquisti, et. al., Expecting the Unexpected: Understanding Mismatched Privacy
Expectations Online, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/10/0008199936.pdf; Who Benefits from Targeted Advertising; To Deny, or Not to Deny: A Personalized Privacy Assistant
for Mobile App Permissions.
40
Towards Usable Privacy Policies: Semi-automatically Extracting Data Practices from Websites' Privacy Policies;
To Deny, or Not to Deny: A Personalized Privacy Assistant for Mobile App Permissions; Expecting the
Unexpected: Understanding Mismatched Privacy Expectations Online.
41
Towards Usable Privacy Policies: Semi-automatically Extracting Data Practices from Websites' Privacy Policies.
42
A Design Space for Effective Privacy Notices.
43
https://www.cmu.edu/epp/cvs/cranor-cv.pdf.
44
Matt Vella, Google and Facebook's new Tactic in the Tech Wars, Forbes, July 30, 2012, available at
http://fortune.com/2012/07/30/google-and-facebooks-new-tactic-in-the-tech-wars/.
36

7

in the space of privacy, we can actually have the cake and eat it too,
because of these technologies.”45

MIT’s Catherine Tucker has
received more than
$155,000 from Google

The list of researchers speaking at PrivacyCon included researchers
with multiple financial connections to the company. Catherine
Tucker, a professor of management science and marketing at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has received three grants
from Google totaling $155,000.46 She has written at least three
papers funded directly by Google and five more by trade
associations of which Google is a key member. 47

She may have benefitted from Google funding in other ways as
well. Tucker has disclosed funding from the Computer and
Communication Industry Association (CCIA),48 of which Google is
a member and financial supporter.49
At the conference, Tucker warned that strong privacy protections could deter people from
undergoing genetic testing and stymie the development of personalized medicine. 50
“[T]he spread of potentially revolutionary genetic tests that form the basis of customized
medicine may be stymied by privacy concerns,” the paper argued. In particular, she argued that
requiring the “informed consent” of patients “deters individuals from obtaining genetic tests.” 51

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/776191/2016.01.14_privacycon_final_transcript. pdf,
(P. 243-244).
46
http://cetucker.scripts.mit.edu/docs/cv.pdf.
47
Catherine E. Tucker and Alex Marthews, Social Networks, Advertising and Antitrust, George Mason Law
Review, August 1, 2011, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2723707; Catherine E. Tucker, Social Advertising:
How Advertising that Explicitly Promotes Social Influence Can Backfire, June 01, 2016, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1975897; Catherine Tucker, The Implications of Improved Attribution and Measurability
for Antitrust and Privacy in Online Advertising Markets, George Mason Law Review, Summer 2013, available at
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/gmlr20&div=38&id; Avi Goldfarb, and Catherine E.
Tucker, Advertising Bans and the Substitutability of Online and Offline Advertising, May 4, 2010, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1600221; Lesley Chiou and Catherine E. Tucker, Search Engines and Data Retention:
Implications for Privacy and Antitrust, MIT Sloan Research Paper, May 27, 2014, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2441333; Anja Lambrecht and Catherine E. Tucker, Can Big Data Protect a Firm from
Competition?, December 18, 2015, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2705530; Catherine E. Tucker, The Effect
of Patent Litigation and Patent Assertion Entities on Entrepreneurial Activity, June 22, 2014, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2457611; Catherine E. Tucker, The Reach and Persuasiveness of Viral Video Ads, NET
Institute Working Paper, July 8, 2014, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1952746; Stephen P Ryan, and
Catherine E. Tucker, Heterogeneity and the Dynamics of Technology Adoption, NBER Working Paper, July 2011,
available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1898509; Catherine E. Tucker, Network Stability, Network Externalities and
Technology Adoption, NBER Working Paper, July 2011, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1893390.
48
Stephen Kiebzaka, Greg Raferta, and Catherine E. Tucker, The Effect of Patent Litigation and Patent Assertion
Entities on Entrepreneurial Activity, Research Policy, available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315001158.
49
http://www.ccianet.org/about/members.
50
Privacy Protection, Personalized Medicine and Genetic Testing.
51
Id.
45

8

 Compiling databases of genetic material is a key goal of Verily (formerly Google Life
Sciences)52 and another Alphabet company, Calico.53
Tucker’s paper was timely. A
month after the FTC conference,
the White House announced in
February 2016 a new National
Institutes of Health pilot program
with Verily and Vanderbilt
University to enroll 79,000 US
Slide from Catherine Tucker’s presentation to FTC PrivacyCon
participants in a new program to
collect medical data. 54 Known as
the “Precision Medicine Initiative,” the program seeks to mine the participants’ medical data,
including genetic data, to develop better ways to prevent disease. 55
A similar program in the UK was the subject of recent controversy when it was revealed that
DeepMind, an artificial intelligence company acquired by Google in 2014, had been given access
to healthcare data of 1.6 million patients for research purposes through an agreement with the
Royal Free NHS Trust. 56 The data included information about patients who were HIV positive
as well as details about drug overdoses and abortions. 57
Notably, the data was shared through an “implied consent” arrangement between patients and the
NHS Trust – meaning that the NHS Trust did not need to explicitly seek patients’ consent to
share the data with DeepMind.58
Tucker adopted other Google-friendly policy stances, telling the conference that technology
companies could solve privacy issues without the need for government regulation.

Barr, The Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2014.
http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2015/07/ancestrydna-and-calico-to-research-the-genetics-ofhuman-lifespan/.
54
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/25/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-keyactions-accelerate.
55
Deena Beasley, Verily, Vanderbilt to Test Enrollment in U.S. Precision Medicine Pilot, Reuters, February 25,
2016, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-us-precisionmedicine-idUSKCN0VY1BL.
56
India Ashok, Google DeepMind Granted Access to 1.6m NHS Patients’ Confidential Records, International
Business Times, April 30, 2016, available at http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/google-deepmind-granted-access-1-6m-nhspatients-confidential-records-1557575.
57
Revealed: Google AI Has Access to Huge Haul of NH Patient Data, New Scientist, April 29, 2016, available at
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086454-revealed-google-ai-has-access-to-huge-haul-of-nhs-patient-data/.
58
Natasha Lomas, Concerns Raised Over Broad Scope of DeepMind-NHS Health Data-Sharing Deal, TechCrunch,
May 4, 2016, available at http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/04/concerns-raised-over-broad-scope-of-deepmind-nhshealth-data-sharing-deal/.
52
53

9

 “[W]hat I often see in the discussion is this
underlying assumption that it's never in the
firm's interest to regulate on privacy. And
therefore, government has to intervene,”
she said. “But I think there are instances
that we see in research where there are
incentives to firms to actually improve
privacy protections for consumers — for
example, the provision of user-centric
controls. And so, I sort of see that as a
beam of light in an all too cynical world.” 59

Geoffrey Manne, a prolific author of Googlefunded papers, argued forcefully against
privacy regulation at the FTC’s conference

Google was appreciative of Tucker’s work
and worked behind the scenes to get her on
academic panels. A Google lobbyist
suggested her for a GMU panel in an email
to Cooper.60

Google has also funded Geoffrey Manne,
Google suggested Catherine Tucker as a speaker
for a GMU conference organized by Cooper
another panelist at FTC PrivacyCon. 61
Manne, the founder and Executive Director
of the Google-funded International Center for Law and Economics, has authored at least eight
policy papers supporting Google’s positions on issues including antitrust, search neutrality and
intellectual property, as well as numerous op-eds. 62
Manne wrote several papers and articles arguing against a possible FTC antitrust case against
Google. Those included Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust Case

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/videos/privacycon-part-4/ftc_privacycon__transcript_segment_4.pdf.
60
The email was released as a response to an open records request.
61
http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Manne100916.pdf; Manne is also a senior fellow at TechFreedom,
which is funded by Google. See Chris O’Brien, Obama FTC Nominee Joshua Wright Has Ties To Google, The
Mercury News, September 10, 2012, available at http://www.siliconbeat.com/2012/09/10/obama-ftc-nomineejoshua-wright-has-ties-to-google/; http://techfreedom.org/staff.
62
Geoffrey A. Manne and Joshua D. Wright, If Search Neutrality is the Answer, What's the Question?, April 12,
2011, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1807951; Geoffrey A. Manne and Ben Sperry, The Law and Economics
of Data and Privacy in Antitrust Analysis, 2014 TPRC Conference Paper, August 2014, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2418779; Geoffrey A. Manne, The Problem of Search Engines as Essential Facilities: An
Economic & Legal Assessment, The Next Digital Decade, Essay son the Future of the Internet, January 17, 2011,
available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1747289; http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/ Manne100916.pdf;
Geoffrey A. Manne and Joshua D. Wright, Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust, George Mason Law & Economics
Research Paper, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1490849; Geoffrey A. Manne and Joshua D. Wright,
Regulating Innovation: Competition Policy and Patent Law under Uncertainty, Cambridge U. Press, August 26,
2009, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1462489; Geoffrey A. Manne and Ben Sperry, The Problems and Perils
of Bootstrapping Privacy and Data into an Antitrust Framework, CPI Antitrust Chronicle, May 29, 2015, available
at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2617685.
59

10

 Against Google,63 The Folly of the FTC's Section Five Case Against Google, 64 and The Market
Realities that Undermined the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Google. 65 Manne has also testified
before Congress supporting Google’s position on antitrust issues. 66
At PrivacyCon, Manne argued forcefully against FTC privacy regulation. [M]erely identifying a
problem isn't a sufficient basis for regulating to solve it, nor does the existence of a possible
solution mean that that solution should be mandated,” he said. 67
He argued against holding the conference in the first place and suggested that the solution to any
privacy problems — if they existed — lay in “self-help” by users themselves. “There’s an
additional problem that we have in this forum as well, which is that the FTC has a tendency to
find justification for enforcement decisions in things that are mentioned at workshops just like
these,” he said.68
James Cooper, another PrivacyCon speaker, is also affiliated with a Google-funded institution.
His program, George Mason’s Law and Economics Center, received at least $762,000 in
donations from the company, and during that time produced a raft of papers supporting Google’s
position that it had not broken antitrust laws. 69
Cooper has written on the FTC’s dealings with Google, as well as other issues that relate to
Google and privacy.70
Emails obtained from GMU by the media show how, even when Google funded the institution
and not directly the author, Google has been able to secure favorable treatment for its policy
agenda. A Google lobbyist worked to place an op-ed by Cooper that was favorable to the
Geoffrey A. Manne and Joshua D. Wright, Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust
Case Against Google, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, March 24, 2010, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1577556.
64
Geoffrey Manne, The Folly of the FTC’s Section Five Case Against Google, Forbes, May 7, 2012, available at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/05/07/the-folly-of-the-ftcs-section-five-case-againstgoogle/#298737b85ed5.
65
Geoffrey A. Manne and William Rinehart, The Market Realities that Undermined the FTC’s Antitrust Case
Against Google, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, July 2013, available at
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/antitrust/articles/ ManneRinehart.pdf.
66
http://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/Manne100916.pdf; Google discloses its funding to ICLE on its
“Transparency” web page, and in most cases Manne discloses that ICLE and its research is supported financially by
Google. However, the amounts of individual grants and total funding are not disclosed. See
https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html.
67
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/videos/privacycon-part-5/ftc_privacycon__transcript_segment_5.pdf.
68
Id.
69
Dayen, Salon, Nov. 24, 2015.
70
James Cooper, FTC Deserves Kudos for Clearing Google-Nest Deal, Main Justice, February 18, 2014, available
at http://www.mainjustice.com/2014/02/18/ftc-deserves-kudos-for-clearing-google-nest-deal/; James C. Cooper,
Separation, Pooling, and Predictive Privacy Harms From Big Data: Confusing Benefits for Costs, George Mason
University School of Law, October 7, 2015, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_
comments/2015/10/00028-97819.pdf; James C. Cooper, Privacy and Antitrust: Underpants Gnomes, the First
Amendment, and Subjectivity, George Mason Law Review, June 21, 2013, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2283390.
63

11

 company, according to emails published by Salon.71 Google lobbyists also suggested other
Google-friendly academics to attend a conference organized by Cooper, while concealing its role
from attendees.72

James Cooper at PrivacyCon. Google lobbyists
gave his program at least $762,000, helped place
his op-ed and suggested friendly speakers for his
conference

The revelation that Cooper was acting in
concert with Google did not dissuade the FTC
from inviting him to speak at its conference on
privacy regulations, one of the important issues
the company is facing. Neither did an earlier
investigation by The Washington Post, which
found a different cache of emails showing how
Google had stacked another George Mason
conference on antitrust issues with friendly
experts.73

Several FTC officials were present at that
GMU conference, which took place as the
agency was investigating Google for alleged
violations of antitrust law. Organizers did not disclose Google’s role. 74
At PrivacyCon, Cooper came to Google’s defense after another researcher presented evidence
that it engaged in discrimination by targeting gays and people suffering from Alzheimer’s or
cancer by analyzing their emails. “I'll share just one result, which is a contradiction of one
particular policy or statement that Gmail makes in one of their FAQs,” said Roxana Geambasu of
Columbia University. “Specifically, they say they don't target ads based on sensitive information
such as religion, sexual orientation, health, or sensitive financial categories. Well guess what?
We actually found examples—a lot of examples—that target each and every [one] of these
specific topics.”75
Cooper said that the FTC should not be swayed to take action by such findings “My only point
was using findings like this to inject into policy and potential enforcement actions,” Cooper said.
“Because that seems to be an undercurrent in the papers, at least two of them. Well, here's a
Google privacy policy, and my ad suggested there's tracking, which could lay the predicate for—
So my point is, there seems to be a lack of harm.” 76

Dayen, Salon, Nov. 24, 2015.
Id.
73
Matea Gold and Tom Hamburger, How Google Worked Behind the Scenes to Invite Federal Regulators to
Conferences, The Washington Post, April 12, 2014, available at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2014/04/12/how-google-worked-behind-the-scenes-to-invitefederal-regulators-to-conferences/.
74
Id.
75
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/videos/privacycon-part-3/ftc_privacycon__transcript_segment_3.pdf.
76
Id.
71
72

12

 Another GMU professor, Siona Listokin, was also invited to speak at PrivacyCon. Listokin also
received a Google Faculty Research Award in 2015 for an undisclosed amount. 77 She submitted
a Google-funded paper not accepted for presentation, entitled Industry Self-Regulation of
Consumer Data, Privacy and Security, which identified some of the ways that industry selfregulation on privacy is preferable to government regulation. 78
"There are a number of advantages to self-regulation in fast changing industries like e-commerce
(broadly defined) that collect and use consumer data," she argued. "Information technology is
fast changing by nature and regulatory responses may not keep pace with the industry. When
properly managed, self-regulation through trade associations and certification programs can
adapt more quickly and appropriately to innovations than government regulation, and can
provide a market solution to information asymmetries between firms and consumers by
differentiating companies' data privacy and security performance." 79
In addition to the above, the following academics who presented at PrivacyCon have either
received funding from Google or are affiliated with institutions that are funded by Google:
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?

Justin Brookman of the FTC (formerly Google-funded Center for Democracy and
Technology)80
Omer Tene, Stanford Center for Internet and Society81
Elana Zeide, Future of Privacy Forum82
Serge Egelman of the International Computer Science Institute 83
Ashwini Rao of Carnegie Mellon University84
Alan McQuinn of International Technology and Innovative Foundation 85
Darren Stevenson of Stanford Law School 86
Michael Carl Tschantz of the International Computer Science Institute 87
Anupam Datta of Carnegie Mellon University88
Roxana Geambasu of Columbia University89
Jens Grossklags of Penn State University90

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sionalistokin.
Siona Listokin, Industry Self-Regulation of Consumer Data Privacy and Security, June 10, 2015, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/10/00031-97822.pdf.
79
Id.
80
https://cdt.org/files/2014/03/CDT2013FundingbyCategory.pdf.
81
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about-us.
82
https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html.
83
https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/partnerships/sponsors-and-research-partners.
84
With Google Funding, GMU Turning Campus, Pittsburgh into Internet of Things Testbed, Pittsburgh Business
Times, July 9, 2015, available at http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/innovation/2015/07/with-googlefunding-cmu-turning-campus-pittsburgh.html.
85
https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html.
86
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about-us.
87
https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/partnerships/sponsors-and-research-partners.
88
Pittsburgh Business Times, July 9, 2015.
89
https://roxanageambasu.github.io/.
90
http://ist.psu.edu/directory/faculty/jen.
77
78

13






Vitaly Shmatikov of Cornell
University, who co-authored a
paper with a Google employee91
Florian Schaub of Carnegie
Mellon University
Deirdre Mulligan of University
of California Berkeley and Chair
of Center for Democracy &
Technology92
Veronica Marotta of Carnegie
Mellon University93

In addition to academics and academic
institutions, two nonprofits that have
received substantial Google funding also
submitted papers by PrivacyCon:
Access94 and the Family Online Safety
Institute.95
Access has received more than $1.5
million in Google support since 2010.96
It counts several Google connections
Google-funded authors were accepted at a higher rate by the
among its past and current board
FTC, despite the potential conflict of interest
members, employees, and consultants
97
including Vint Cerf, Andrew
McLaughlin,98 Raman Jit Singh Chima,99 and Javier Pallero.100 Access did not disclose Google’s
funding in its FTC submission.101
The Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) was the only PrivacyCon participant to disclose that
its submission, Parenting in the Digital Age, was supported in part by money from Google. 102 In
D. Frank Smith, Google Funding Research into Deep Learning, EdTech, October 6, 2015, available at
http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2015/10/google-funding-research-deep-learning.
92
https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html.
93
Pittsburgh Business Times, July 9, 2015.
94
Letter from Jennifer Janley, Director, Legal & Policy, Family Online Safety Institute to Federal Trade
Commission, October 9, 2015, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/09/00008-97486.pdf.
95
Nader Ammari, Gustaf Björksten, Peter Micek, and Deji Olukotun, The Rise of Mobile Tracking Headers: How
Telcos Around the World Are Threatening Your Privacy, August 2015, available at
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/10/00047-98088.pdf.
96
https://www.accessnow.org/financials/.
97
https://web.archive.org/web/20140225191823/https://www.accessnow.org/about/board.
98
https://www.accessnow.org/author/andrew-mclaughlin/.
99
https://www.linkedin.com/in/raman-jit-singh-chima-1aa07918.
100
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javierpallero.
101
The Rise of Mobile Tracking Headers: How Telcos Around the World Are Threatening Your Privacy.
102
https://www.fosi.org/policy-research/parenting-digital-age/.
91

14

 addition to financial support, Google’s Sarah Holland sits on FOSI’s board of directors. 103 Other
Googlers currently or previously involved with FOSI include Pavni Diwanji, 104 Tina Ornduff,105
Juniper Downs,106 Brittany Smith,107 among others.108
2. George Mason Law Review 19th Annual Antitrust Symposium, February 18, 2016

All-but-one participants at a GMU panel on global Google antitrust investigations had financial
ties to the company
Google funded a large number of speakers on the panels of the 2016 George Mason Law Review
symposium, whose theme was Antitrust in an Interconnected World. For example, four of five
speakers on a panel entitled Google: Global Antitrust Investigations, had financial ties to
Google.109 They did not disclose those ties to the audience.
Geoffrey Manne, whose ICLE has been funded by Google, moderated the panel. Other speakers
included a former Google consultant, Michael Salinger, who worked with Google during the
https://www.fosi.org/about/board-staff/sarah-holland/.
https://www.fosi.org/people/pavni-diwanji/.
105
https://www.fosi.org/people/tina-ornduff/.
106
https://www.fosi.org/people/juniper-downs/.
107
https://www.fosi.org/people/brittany-smith/.
108
https://www.fosi.org/about/board-staff/patricia-cartes/; https://www.fosi.org/about/board-staff/sue-duke/.
109
http://www.masonlec.org/events/event/317-george-mason-law-review-th-annual-antitrust-symposium-antitrustinterconnected-world.
103
104

15

 FTC investigation and later co-wrote a paper about it with another Google consultant, Robert
Levinson of Charles River Associates.
Google provided the funding for their paper.110
Also on the panel was Daniel Sokol, a
University of Florida law professor who
represented Google at Wilson, Sonsini,
Goodrich & Rosati, the company’s main
outside antitrust law firm.111

Andrea Renda spoke at GMU’s panel on the Google
investigations. His group is funded by Google and he
has written several articles criticizing the EU’s
investigation of the company

Andrea Renda, a senior research fellow at
the Centre for European Policy Studies, was
also a speaker on that panel.112 Google is a
corporate member of his group and Renda
served as chairman of a joint CEPS-Google
Seminar on Online Privacy in Brussels in
2007.113

Renda has written several papers criticizing
the European Union’s antitrust case against Google including Searching for harm or harming
search? A look at the European Commission’s Antitrust Investigation against Google.114
Other academics with financial ties to Google participated on different panels at GMU’s
conference. James Cooper sat on a panel entitled Antitrust Lessons for Privacy Regulators,
attended by two FTC officials, including a commissioner of the agency.

Michael A. Salinger and Robert J. Levinson, The Role for Economic Analysis in the FTC’s Google Investigation,
June 2013, available at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/searlecenter/events/internet/
documents/Salinger_Economics_of_Google_and_Antitrust_Case_Searle_conference_version.pdf.
111
D. Daniel Sokol, Tensions Between Antitrust and Industrial Policy, George Mason Law Review, 2015, available
at https://leconcurrentialiste.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/tensions-between-antitrust-and-industrial-policy.pdf;
https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=clients/011613-FTC-google.htm.
112
https://www.ceps.eu/system/files/CVs/CV%20Andrea%20Renda%202011.pdf.
113
https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-membership-programme.
114
Andrea Renda, Antitrust on the “G” String, Mercato Concorrenza Regole, February 2012, available at
https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1434/37821; Andrea Renda, Searching for Harm or Harming Search? A Look at
the European Commission’s Antitrust Investigation Against Google, Center for European Policy Studies, September
21, 2015, available at https://www.ceps.eu/publications/searching-harm-or-harming-search-look-europeancommission’s-antitrust-investigation; Andrea Renda, Antitrust, Regulation and the Neutrality Trap: A Plea for a
Smart, Evidence-Based Internet Policy, Centre for European Policy Studies, April 17, 2015, available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2613325.
110

16

 GMU has shown to be highly malleable to Google’s influence. The Washington Post and Salon
have both documented how Google sought to get friendly representatives on conferences
organized by the university.115
3. Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy and Center for
Democracy and Technology, Understanding Technical Issues in Broadband Privacy,
May 10, 2016

Five of seven panelists at Princeton’s privacy event were Google-funded
On May 10, 2016, Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy and the
Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) co-sponsored a “mini-workshop” entitled
Understanding the Technical Aspects of Broadband Privacy.116
115
116

Gold and Hamburger, The Washington Post, April 12, 2014; Dayen, Salon, Nov. 24, 2015.
https://citp.princeton.edu/event/citpcdt-workshop-understanding-technical-aspects-of-broadband-privacy/.

17

 Like the FTC’s PrivacyCon, the event was touted as an opportunity for attendees to benefit from
a “diverse set of perspectives” related to policy views on Internet and ISP privacy. 117 The
majority of the speakers had received financial support from Google—some of it substantial—
without disclosing that to the audience.
In all, five of seven panelists had financial ties to Google. The co-sponsor of the event, CDT,
received $2.5 million from Google between 2010 and 2014 according to tax records. A recent
media article noted that the nonprofit had been a vocal critic of broadband providers, but
remained virtually silent on Google’s own privacy issues. 118
Other conference participants receiving Google funding included Princeton’s Nick Feamster, a
computer science researcher who received a $1.5 million Google Focus Grant in 2011 and a
$100,000 Google Faculty Research Award in 2015;119 Joseph Lorenzo Hall with the Center for
Democracy & Technology; Harlan Yu with Upturn; and Georgetown University’s Laura Moy.
Both Moy and Yu are closely affiliated with New America Foundation, which receives

substantial Google support. Moy is a program fellow at New America’s Open Technology
Institute, which produces a large volume of research that supports Google’s policy positions. 120
Yu was a policy law clerk at Google and counts NAF as a client. 121
New America’s contributor page shows 2015 and 2016 contributions totaling $1 million+ from
Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt and his wife Wendy, and $250,000-$999,999 from Google. 122
Schmidt is the chairman emeritus of New America’s Board of Directors. 123

Id.
Alana Goodman, Consumer Watchdog Took Millions from Google, Quiet on Privacy Concerns, The Washington
Free Beacon, May 3, 2016, available at http://freebeacon.com/issues/consumer-watchdog-took-millions-googlequiet-privacy-concerns/.
119
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~feamster/cv/cv-jan2016.pdf.
120
https://www.newamerica.org/experts/laura-moy/.
121
https://www.teamupturn.com/static/files/cv-harlan-yu.pdf.
122
https://www.newamerica.org/our-funding/our-funders/.
123
https://www.newamerica.org/our-people/eric-schmidt/; http://www.newamerica.org/new-america/pressreleases/new-america-appoints-reihan-salam-and-jonathan-soros-board-chairs/.
117
118

18