In responding to the growing uproar of hypocrisy over comments made during Google's investor call by Google's CFO that "...everybody that uses Chrome gives us a guaranteed locked-in user" for Google," Brandi Sparkles, Google's renowned crisis PR expert, held a press conference today for just Google-friendly media.

• Brandi Sparkles was joined on the Mountain View dais by Google's Official Keeper of the Google Narrative, Mr. Stori Spinner, and Director of Google's "That Was Not Us" Office, Ms. Anne Teetrust-Violet.

Brandi Sparkles read the following statement to friendly reporters and did not take any questions, in keeping with Google CEO Larry Page's new approach to the media.

"All discussion of Chrome and how it gives Google a "locked-in user," and that "the lifetime value of a Chrome user is phenomenal," that some claim occurred on last week's Google earnings call, was not authorized by me, so it simply did not happen.

We are in the process of innovatively "tweaking" our search algorithm so you will not find any evidence to the contrary. Only the extensive remarks by new CEO Larry Page on the call should be considered official, and his comments should be more than enough information and transparency to put this issue permanently to rest.

Moreover, let me be crystal clear: Google could not ever do anything that would violate antitrust because 'competition is just a click away' and if Google ever did anything to violate users' trust in us they would immediately leave Google and never come back to us, (notwithstanding our CFO's non-comments that never occurred that left the false impression that "Chrome gives us a locked-in user.")

Furthermore, and hypothetically speaking only, if Google was to do something to cause a user to take advantage of that easy-as-pie one-click-away ability to choose another search engine, that user would be happy and content believing that they had left Google search, even through Chrome, Google would still know most everything they did, as if they actually used Google search.

So hypothetically speaking, if the user is happy and clueless that they have one-click-away freedom, why would anyone want to undermine user happiness with the Buzz-kill of focusing on Chrome's omni-tracking capability of everything that happens via Chrome?

At Google, we believe perception is reality, so what matters here is that users and antitrust authorities continue to have the perception that competition is 'one-click-away.'

Thank you for your time and again graciously accepting our explanation at face value.

See you next time someone claims Google did something they did not do and would never do because it would undermine user trust, which I have already said Google would never do."

***

Google Antitrust Pinocchio Series:

Part VIII: Google's Deceptive One Click Away Defense

Part VII: Two fatal Flaws in Google's Antitrust Defense

Part VI: Fact-Checking Google's Antitrust Defense

Part V: "Google does not reap the benefits of significant network effects"

Part IV: Stress-Testing Google's Top Ten Antitrust Defenses

Part III: "Google-AdMob: 'Its too new to dominate'"

Part II: Google: Antitrust's Pinocchio?

Part I: What is "One click away?