DOJ’s case against Google relies on proving restrictive contracts protected its dominant position, a similar move to the antitrust case against Microsoft (Steve Lohr/New York Times)

Steve Lohr / New York Times:
DOJ’s case against Google relies on proving restrictive contracts protected its dominant position, a similar move to the antitrust case against Microsoft  —  The Justice Department’s antitrust case points to restrictive contracts, a focus that a professor said “is as old as the Sherman Act.”

Study: companies are increasingly tailoring their financial statements to cater to algorithms parsing text and speech and avoiding phrases perceived as negative (Gregor Stuart Hunter/Bloomberg)

Gregor Stuart Hunter / Bloomberg:
Study: companies are increasingly tailoring their financial statements to cater to algorithms parsing text and speech and avoiding phrases perceived as negative  —  – Study finds companies alter words to cater to listening algos  — Emphasis on positivity as negative phrases get ditched

Report: at least 2,000 US law enforcement agencies, including 49 of the 50 largest police departments, have the tools to access locked, encrypted phones (Jack Nicas/New York Times)

Jack Nicas / New York Times:
Report: at least 2,000 US law enforcement agencies, including 49 of the 50 largest police departments, have the tools to access locked, encrypted phones  —  At least 2,000 law enforcement agencies have tools to get into encrypted smartphones, according to new research, and they are using them far more than previously known.

DOJ’s lawsuit against Google is appropriately narrow, focusing on search and providing a template for Congressional action against Big Tech even if it fails (Ben Thompson/Stratechery)

Ben Thompson / Stratechery:
DOJ’s lawsuit against Google is appropriately narrow, focusing on search and providing a template for Congressional action against Big Tech even if it fails  —  So it finally happened: the U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging anticompetitive behavior under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.