How is Modern Metadata Transforming Antitrust Litigation?

Summary: Modern collaboration tools have changed the very definition of metadata—and antitrust litigators must evolve with it. From Slack threads to Google Doc revisions, today’s metadata challenges can derail discovery if not handled strategically from the start. Read on to learn how experts are helping legal teams stay defensible, efficient, and ahead of the curve.

‍

In the fast-moving world of antitrust litigation and investigations, the rules of the game are changing—and not just in the courtroom.

As regulators intensify scrutiny and plaintiffs increasingly pursue private enforcement, the data legal teams must manage is becoming more complex. A decade ago, metadata largely meant email headers and file path information. Today, it means deciphering context from Slack threads, Google Workspace revisions, Teams chats, and mobile screenshots. And in 2025, the challenge isn’t just collecting these new data types—it’s making sure they’re handled defensibly and don’t derail eDiscovery efforts.

When new data sources don’t fit the existing mold for metadata, it can disrupt everything from searching, to TAR models, to production requirements. This is especially problematic in antitrust matters, when attorneys are already working under tight discovery deadlines and the ability to find key documents may make or break a deal.  
‍

The hidden risks in modern collaboration

According to our 2025 Emerging Trends in Antitrust report, the rise of private antitrust litigation and expanded enforcement authority has increased pressure on legal teams to move fast and be thorough. That becomes a tall order when the data in scope spans dozens of platforms, each with its own metadata quirks.

Take Slack and Google Workspace, for example. Both are widely used for real-time collaboration, yet they don’t map neatly to traditional metadata frameworks. Slack threads may span days and include dozens of participants; Google Docs can change minute-by-minute without generating a new file. These nuances especially can impact search term testing to TAR training, where metadata fields often drive inclusion or exclusion decisions.
‍

Building a defensible metadata strategy – from custodial interviews to production

To manage these risks, antitrust teams need to modernize their approach to metadata early in the litigation or investigation lifecycle. That starts with custodian interviews.

It is critical that custodian interviews address all programs used for business purposes. For example, Google—and sometimes Slack data—has its own unique set of fields; mobile phones are used for more than just messaging, etc.

It is important to determine the applications used, how communications occurred, and whether business decisions were made outside traditional channels. Custodian interview questions should specifically address how custodians are using their phones and tablets, as tools such as note keeping, photos, and recordings are now replacing notebooks and memos. Antitrust teams can then collaborate with forensic and discovery professionals to ensure data collection captures both content and the context provided by metadata. Once collected, data should be assessed holistically. Then, antitrust attorneys should ensure that any ESI protocols are drafted in a way that reflects the reality of the metadata involved in their matter.
‍

Questions to ask early on

Below are a few key questions attorneys should consider to ensure a defensible discovery process and avoid costly missteps involving metadata down the line in their antitrust matters:
‍

• Do custodian interview templates address the common programs/devices that custodians may be using for business purposes?
• Do custodian interviews explicitly address the topic of ephemerality? To the extent that a modern data source has the functionality of disappearing messages, it should be identified early if it has been turned on.
• Do new fields need to be mapped for search or production?
• Will certain metadata fields require translation or normalization?
• Are there structured elements—like reactions, edits, or location data—that may be relevant to antitrust issues such as market allocation or intent?
• Are all file types discussed in the custodian interview notes represented in search results or TAR model populations? For example, if a custodian said they used Apple Notes to document meetings, make sure those files are not excluded from search conditions due to non-standard metadata. Taking steps to match up the actual data in the population to what custodians said they used will save significant time and effort later in the matter.
• Are there new metadata fields that need to be included for searching or added to production specs in the ESI protocol?
  ‍

Preparing for what’s next

As antitrust enforcement continues to evolve, metadata management will only grow more critical. From DOJ and FTC expectations to private litigant demands, legal teams must be ready to explain how—and why—certain data was searched, reviewed, and produced.

That means antitrust attorneys must be prepared to go beyond check-the-box collections and embrace a deeper understanding of how collaboration tools, mobile devices, and emerging platforms are shaping the digital evidence landscape.

If you’re looking for more information about handling modern data in antitrust matters, check out our antitrust practice page.