In a stark affidavit filed January 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Google’s Vice President and Head of Search Elizabeth Reid warned that court-mandated sharing of its search index, rankings, and user data would unleash irreparable damage to intellectual property, invite rampant spam, and shatter user privacy safeguards. The document, part of Google’s motion for a partial stay pending appeal in United States v. Google LLC (No. 1:20-cv-03010), underscores the tech giant’s fierce resistance to remedies imposed after Judge Amit P. Mehta’s rulings finding Google maintained an illegal search monopoly.

Reid, drawing on her direct oversight of Google Search, detailed how Section IV of the final judgment demands a one-time dump of the core web index to ‘qualified competitors’ at marginal cost. This includes every URL with its DocID, crawl timings, spam scores, and device flags from an index spanning roughly 400 billion documents. ‘The selection of webpages in Google’s search index is the result of more than twenty-five years of sustained investments and exhaustive engineering efforts,’ Reid stated in the affidavit, available via CourtListener.

Rivals could exploit this to bypass their own crawling, focusing solely on Google’s curated subset while reverse-engineering proprietary freshness signals and tiering structures. Spam scores, revealed alongside trillions of low-quality pages flagged during crawls, would arm bad actors. ‘Fighting spam depends on obscurity, as external knowledge of spam-fighting mechanisms or signals eliminates the value of those mechanisms and signals,’ Reid cautioned, predicting more misleading content and user harm.

Index Disclosure: A Gift to Competitors

The affidavit paints a dire picture of competitive erosion, with qualified rivals gaining ‘core search assets’ that shortcut decades of investment. During the May 2025 remedies trial, Reid testified that implementing DOJ proposals would divert 1,000 to 2,000 engineers—20% of the search team—from innovation to compliance, as reported by CNBC. She highlighted the Knowledge Graph, a database of over 500 billion facts built with more than $20 billion in engineering and content costs over a decade.

Judge Mehta’s September 2, 2025, remedies opinion rejected DOJ calls for Chrome divestiture or Android changes but mandated index and aggregated user-interaction data sharing with qualified rivals, excluding ads data. A technical committee gained access to source code and algorithms under confidentiality, with remedies effective for six years from a December 5, 2025, final judgment, per analyses in National Taxpayers Union publications.

Google’s appeal, filed shortly after, argues these measures risk ‘immediate and irreparable harm’ before the D.C. Circuit reviews the monopoly finding. Reid’s filing supports pausing Sections IV and V, which also force syndication of live results like the ‘ten blue links,’ query rewrites, and features such as Maps and Knowledge Panels for up to five years.

Syndication Mandates: Live Results at Risk

Syndication lacks Google’s typical controls over partners, exposing outputs of ‘decades of sustained engineering effort and many billions of dollars of investment.’ Competitors could store data for analysis or leak it, while third parties scrape from their sites. ‘Any third party could ‘scrape’ the syndicated results and features from Qualified Competitors’ sites,’ Reid noted, including potential foreign state actors targeting Google.com alternatives.

In May 2025 testimony covered by The Verge, Reid warned data sharing would ‘deeply undermine user trust,’ turning startups into hacker magnets with ‘this huge treasure trove of data.’ Users might avoid sensitive queries, blaming Google for breaches at rivals lacking its safeguards.

Section IV.B demands periodic handover of ‘User-side Data’ for Glue and RankEmbed models—13 months of U.S. logs capturing queries, locations, clicks, hovers, and result orders. This ‘reveals the output of Google’s Search technologies in response to every query,’ enabling rivals to train LLMs or dissect rankings, per Reid.

Privacy Breach: User Data in Crosshairs

Google loses authority over anonymization, with users faulting it for fallout. ‘Google users are nonetheless likely to fault Google for any privacy or security issues that arise from the data disclosures,’ the affidavit states. Echoing CEO Sundar Pichai, Reid highlighted reverse-engineering risks during trial, as noted in Courthouse News Service: bad actors could inject spam, turning spam-fighting into a ‘cat and mouse game where your hands are really tied behind your back.’

Initial coverage by Search Engine Land emphasized how index dumps, including spam scores, weaken defenses, with spammers targeting low-risk pages via hacks. The FTC backed DOJ data-sharing in a May 2025 amicus brief, per Fox Business, despite Google’s pleas.

Industry observers note AI’s rise—ChatGPT, Perplexity—shaped Mehta’s restraint, viewing it as a disruptive force obviating breakups, as in TechCrunch. DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg testified the data might not suffice for catch-up, per The New York Times.

Appeal Stakes: Innovation vs. Enforcement

Google’s motion stresses non-recoverable IP loss post-appeal, with reputational hits from spam surges or breaches. Remedies bar exclusive defaults for Search, Chrome, Assistant, and Gemini, but allow preload payments sans exclusivity, balancing consumer benefits amid zero switching costs.

As a consumer class action advances—Judge Rita Lin allowed claims January 22, 2026, per Reuters—Reid’s affidavit elevates the debate. It posits forced openness trades short-term rivalry for long-term degradation: poorer results, eroded trust, stifled R&D. The D.C. Circuit’s ruling could redefine tech accountability, weighing monopoly cures against ecosystem perils.

Stakeholders from SEO pros to AI builders watch closely. Recent X discussions, like those from growth experts, frame it as a ‘boîte de Pandore’ for IP and privacy, amplifying Reid’s core alarm.