Earlier this month, the tech world was rocked by two seemingly unrelated but deeply intertwined developments at Google. On September 19, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta handed down a landmark ruling in the long-running antitrust case against the search giant, ordering Google to share portions of its prized search index and user click-and-query data with certain competitors. The move, designed to chip away at Google’s dominance in the search engine market, has sent ripples through the technology, privacy, and business communities. At the same time, Google quietly posted—and then almost as quickly closed—a job listing for a Senior Engineering Analyst, Search, Anti-scraper, raising eyebrows among industry watchers and fueling speculation about the company’s next moves.
Judge Mehta’s order is a response to the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust case, which accused Google of monopolizing the search engine market through exclusive agreements with companies like Apple and Samsung. These deals ensured that Google remained the default search engine on billions of devices, giving it an unparalleled edge over rivals and allowing it to amass vast troves of user data. As reported by NPR, the penalties stop short of breaking up the company but are nonetheless historic: Google must now provide a one-time snapshot of its search index at a marginal cost, as well as at least two sets of users’ click-and-query data, to “qualified competitors.”
But what exactly is at stake with this data-sharing mandate? Google’s search index, as explained by Mitch Stoltz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is like the index of a massive, ever-changing book—a database cataloging the world’s web pages. More valuable still is the click-and-query data, which reveals what users are searching for and which links they click. According to Jonathan Stray, a senior scientist at the Center for Human Compatible AI at UC Berkeley, “That’s extremely important information, because it tells Google when it was successful at figuring out what you wanted. So it’s a very powerful feedback signal.”
However, as Google and privacy advocates have pointed out, this treasure trove of data also includes sensitive and potentially identifiable information. “The search queries you share with Google are often sensitive and personal and are protected by Google's strict security standards; in the hands of a different company without strong security practices, bad actors could access them to identify you and your search history,” Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, wrote in a blog post last year, as cited by NPR.
To address these concerns, Judge Mehta’s ruling establishes a five-person technical oversight committee. This panel, which will serve for six years, is tasked with determining which companies qualify for access, setting data security standards, and monitoring Google’s compliance. Members will be chosen by the DOJ, Google, plaintiff states, and two others agreed upon by all parties, with expertise in areas like software engineering, artificial intelligence, economics, behavioral science, data privacy, or security. The committee faces a daunting challenge: balancing the need to foster competition with the imperative to protect user privacy.
Experts warn that even anonymized click-and-query data could be used to deduce individuals’ identities, especially when combined with other information like IP addresses. Mehta himself acknowledged the risk, writing, “Think of a search query from a user in a small town regarding a rare health condition. Even if the user’s name is not included in the data, context could reveal their identity.”
Mitch Stoltz of the EFF put it bluntly: “U.S. consumers have very little control over the data that they give over to Google and other online platforms, even very personal data. I mean, we tell search engines things that we wouldn’t tell a romantic partner or doctor, and it’s out there, and we don’t have a lot of legal recourse for what happens to it.”
To mitigate these risks, the technical committee is expected to explore various anonymization techniques, such as filtering out queries made by fewer than 10 people. Yet, as Stoltz noted, “The more this data is anonymized and filtered, the less useful it is. And it’s not clear to me that there’s really a sweet spot where the data is both protective of users’ privacy and still is helpful and useful to competitors. Hopefully there is, but it’s not at all clear.”
While the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have supported proposals for independent audits and risk mitigation programs, the practicalities remain murky. The timeline for implementation is also uncertain, as Google has indicated it will appeal both the penalties and the underlying ruling—a process likely to drag on for years.
Amidst this legal and regulatory storm, Google’s own actions have added another layer of intrigue. On or around September 12, 2025, the company posted a job listing for a Senior Engineering Analyst, Search, Anti-scraper. The role was designed to bolster Google’s defenses against scraping—the automated extraction of search results by third parties, a practice that can undermine both Google’s business model and its privacy commitments. The listing, which appeared on both Google’s site and LinkedIn, required at least five years of experience in data analysis, project management, threat intelligence, anti-abuse, security, SEO, and proficiency in programming languages like SQL, JavaScript, Python, or C++.
The responsibilities were clear: “Investigate and analyze complex patterns of abuse on Google Search, utilizing data-motivated insights to develop countermeasures and enhance platform security. Analyze datasets to identify trends, patterns, and anomalies that may indicate abuse within Google Search. Develop and track metrics to measure scraper impact and the effectiveness of anti-scraping defenses. Collaborate with engineering teams to design, test, and launch new anti-scraper rules, models, and system enhancements.” The candidate would also be expected to “develop and maintain threat intelligence on scraper actors, motivations, tactics and the scraper ecosystem.”
Yet, within just a week—and after receiving 49 applications via LinkedIn—the listing was abruptly closed. The SEO community took notice, speculating that the sudden closure might have been prompted by the attention and controversy the job attracted. As Barry Schwartz reported, “There is obviously a lot of speculation about the purpose of this job.” Some wondered if the timing was a coincidence, or if Google was responding to the heightened scrutiny around its data practices in the wake of Judge Mehta’s ruling.
For Google, the stakes are high on multiple fronts. The company must navigate the legal and technical complexities of complying with the court’s order, all while maintaining its reputation for safeguarding user privacy and fending off those who would scrape its results for their own gain. Betsy Cooper, director of the Aspen Institute’s Policy Academy, summed up the situation: “Data is the currency upon which this entire [search] ecosystem was created, and it’s the currency upon which Google built its wealth. Now you’re seeing a redistribution of that currency to other competitors.”
As the technical oversight committee prepares to take on its formidable mandate and Google recalibrates its anti-scraping strategies, the future of online search—and the privacy of billions—hangs in the balance. The coming years will reveal whether competition and privacy can coexist in the digital age, or if the very data that powers innovation will become its greatest liability.
