>I keep seeing folks float this as some admission of wrongdoing but it is not.

It absolutely is.

If they knew without a doubt their equipment (that they produce) doesn't eavesdrop, then why would they be concerned about "risk [...] and uncertainty of litigation"?

▲

gildenFish 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It is not. The belief that it does is just a comforting delusion people believe to avoid reality. Large companies often forgo fighting cases that will result in a Pyrrhic victory.

Also people already believe google (and every other company) eavesdrops on them, going to trail and winning the case people would not change that.

▲

stackghost 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That doesn't answer my question. By their own statement they are concerned about the risks and uncertainty of litigation.

Again: If their products did not eavesdrop, precisely what risks and uncertainty are they afraid of?

	▲	caminante 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm giving parent benefit of the doubt, but I'm chuckling at the following scenarios: (1) Alphabet admits wrongdoing, but gets an innocent verdict (2) Alphabet receives a verdict of wrongdoing, but denies it and the parent using either to claim lack of > some admission of wrongdoing The court's designed to settle disputes more than render verdicts.