Justice Department, State Attorneys General Likely to Bring Antitrust Lawsuits Against Google (cnbc.com) 28
phalse phace shares a report from The Wall Street Journal: Both the Justice Department and a group of state attorneys general are likely to file antitrust lawsuits against Alphabet's Google (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source) -- and are well into planning for litigation. The Justice Department is moving toward bringing a case as soon as this summer, some of the people said. At least some state attorneys general -- led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican -- are likely to file a case, probably in the fall.
Much of the states' investigation has focused on Google's online advertising business. The Justice Department likewise is making Google's ad technology one of its points of emphasis. But it is also focusing more broadly on concerns that Google uses its dominant search business to stifle competition, people familiar with the matter said. The lawsuits -- if they are filed -- could pose a direct threat to Google's businesses and rank among the most significant antitrust cases in U.S. history, alongside the government's antitrust case against Microsoft in the late 1990s. The search giant's critics have called for a range of sanctions against Google, from changes to its business practices to a breakup of the company.
Much of the states' investigation has focused on Google's online advertising business. The Justice Department likewise is making Google's ad technology one of its points of emphasis. But it is also focusing more broadly on concerns that Google uses its dominant search business to stifle competition, people familiar with the matter said. The lawsuits -- if they are filed -- could pose a direct threat to Google's businesses and rank among the most significant antitrust cases in U.S. history, alongside the government's antitrust case against Microsoft in the late 1990s. The search giant's critics have called for a range of sanctions against Google, from changes to its business practices to a breakup of the company.
Grandstanding (Score:2)
The problem could be corrected without any government intervention if consumers would just block all ads served by Google or one of the companies they own. Just as effective and it saves us from having to listen to all the speeches given with wagging fingers and puffed out chests. Well all of them related to this at least.
Re:Grandstanding (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, if M$ is the reference for "significant" then nothing will come of it.
Re:Grandstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, if M$ is the reference for "significant" then nothing will come of it.
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in the 1990s was far more egregious than anything Google has done. Yet they got away with it.
Google has significant competition for advertising, including Facebook, Amazon, and ... Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a number of congresscritters reminding the hand that feeds them that lunch time is approaching.
So after some money exchanges hands, everything will be back to business as usual.
Re: Grandstanding (Score:2)
As David Byrne sung in Born Under Punches (The Heat Goes On) , "Take a look at these hands, the hand speaks, the hand of a government man".
Browsers, just like Microsoft (Score:3)
Shaking in their boots (Score:2)
I'm sure Google's just shaking in their boots over this threat. Heavens, they might get punished almost as badly as Microsoft was.
Re:Shaking in their boots (Score:4, Informative)
Heavens, they might get punished almost as badly as Microsoft was.
It took the European Union to have the will to make Microsoft do something as trivial as publishing their networking specifications. In the U.S., Microsoft did indeed get away entirely with its monopolistic behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Google just scaled back their diversity and inclusion programs to appear more palatable to conservatives. And American Edge is about to become a thing, Google has been dumping money into it too.
Forgive me for having some optimism, but there's a chance antitrust might be enforced this time around. Google would not take any action unless they felt threatened. Peter Thiel's accusations of CCP influence left a big impression on a lot of lawmakers, my sense is they may allow this to proceed simply to continue do
Re: Shaking in their boots (Score:2)
Like using search to force browser, using browser to kill ad blockers, etc, as noted.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to put it anothjer way, the more things change the m,ore they stay the same.
I remember when Google had the slogan "don't be evil", meaning basically don't act like Mikcrosoft. Now they've become Microsoft.
This is likely punishment (Score:2)
Google cracked down the hardest, and now the GOP are doing their best to punish.
BUT, with that said, I am happy. All of the tech companies are getting too big. best thing we can do is break them up into parallel
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so it has nothing to do with controlling dominant market share in multiple areas, abusing it, Going after rivals, and silencing as well as breaking CDA 230 protections? Well, sure glad your TDS got in the way of making a coherent post.
Re: This is likely punishment (Score:2)
Care to clarify what you mean by "breaking CDA 230 protections"?
Re: This is likely punishment (Score:2)
Re: This is likely punishment (Score:4, Informative)
Then it looks as though your username is wrong in this instance.
You are uninformed or misinformed about the law, and if only in the hopes that I can help other people, I'll spare a minute to set you straight.
Congress enacted the law in question -- 47 USC 230 -- which is commonly but erroneously called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- in order to encourage internet providers of all kinds to remove offensive materials from the Internet without any risk of liability. You are complaining about it being used in exactly the manner it is intended to be used.
Here's the background: In olden days, the publisher of a periodical or a book had total control over what appeared in it, and had time to check their facts. Thus, if they printed something defamatory, they were responsible for it just as if they were the author. On the other hand, retailers don't have time to read everything they sell and to verify it for accuracy, so they're not liable at all for selling defamatory material unless they're first put on notice.
By the early 1990s someone tried to put this into practice with regard to early dial up networks. First there was a lawsuit against CompuServe but the court held that since the company took no notice of what its users did, the company was not liable for them. The defamed party could still sue individual users, but this is generally pointless. But then there was a case against Prodigy, and Prodigy, being a more family friendly network, had volunteer moderators who tried to keep out bad language and such. The court there held that this made Prodigy totally liable for all misdeeds on their network because they were aware of what was going on and exerted control. The court's ruling essentially was that if you're going to do any moderation at all, you have to moderate for all possible reasons and do a perfect job, even though it's impossible, or you may be in deep trouble.
This led to networks taking a hands-off approach to avoid liability. But just at that time, Congress realized that there was pornography online and that kids might get at it. They asked network providers to voluntarily filter it out, and were annoyed when the providers refused because that would expose them to liability.
Congress' answer was section 230 -- it clearly states that 1) no one is responsible for material originating from someone else, period; and 2) no one is liable if they voluntarily and in good faith remove any material they consider to be objectionable.
Now ISPs could police their networks and websites for porn and delete it and the net would be safe for children. Except that there was no requirement that anyone actually do that (at least not that survived judicial review; most of the associated laws were grossly unconstitutional).
So is there a publisher/network dichotomy?
No. There is not. The law encourages everyone to remove anything they find objectionable, and ensures that they will face no consequences for doing so or for failing to do so.
So if Google decides that they don't like, say, right wing hate sites, and removes them from their database, they are 100% within their legal rights to do so and are even doing just the sort of thing that the government was encouraging them to do when the law was passed.
Anyone telling you the opposite is either uniformed or lying through their teeth, and probably up to no good.
Re: This is likely punishment (Score:1)
Got triggered by my name and then entirely got it wrong about how they violate the act. Not surprising at all. The triggered people are also the dumb ones. It saves me a lot of reading and debate time when you get all triggery and bothered by a silly name but demonstrati
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's pointless to discuss anything with you, for the sake of others that might be misled, please note that nothing in the law says it only has to be used to delete porn.
This might also be a little long, but while the above poster is happy to be ignorant and think himself wise, please don't follow his bad example. Lies are easy; truth is harder.
Anyway, even when the law was passed in the 90s, limiting liability only to removing porn would not have been sufficient. Remember, in the case against Prodigy,
Re: (Score:2)
Congress enacted the law in question -- 47 USC 230 -- which is commonly but erroneously called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- in order to encourage internet providers of all kinds to remove offensive materials from the Internet without any risk of liability. You are complaining about it being used in exactly the manner it is intended to be used.
No, you fail to understand that it's not being indented as it was meant to be. It gave a site two options: Act like a newspaper aka content is curated, but they maintain some liability. Or as a platform in the "public square." Where they have no liability, but the person making the statements may have some limited liability.
Here's where the breakdown happens. If we take the 3 big social media platforms, and we make 3 posts each on xyz topic under two different agendas. If one is removed more then the
Re: (Score:2)
It gave a site two options: Act like a newspaper aka content is curated, but they maintain some liability. Or as a platform in the "public square." Where they have no liability, but the person making the statements may have some limited liability.
No, you're 100% wrong.
You are describing, roughly, what the situation was like before the law was passed, and which made the law necessary.
Here is what the law actually says:
47 USC 230:
That right there means that the two options you refer to above are eliminated. Instead, no matter what every provider
Re: (Score:2)
controlling dominant market share in multiple areas, abusing it, Going after rivals, and silencing as well as breaking CDA 230 protections?
How long has this been going on for? 5+ years. WHy NOW are they going after Google when even EU has been after them for 5 years?
What is so DIFFERENT that it requires pursuing Google NOW?
TDS blocking an intelligent post? Maybe on your side. Not on mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask yourself why it's only become an issue now, also pay attention to exactly what's happened in the last 45 days affecting only one political party.
Advertising (Score:4, Interesting)
Much of the states' investigation has focused on Google's online advertising business.
Throw the book at them! Online advertising should be illegal.
Remember CorDragon named "Microsoft" (Score:1)
(images mention in link at end)
Another Justice Department Anti-Trust case against a Internationally Evil-Spreading Witch family CorpDragon larger then many Nations, Alphabet (owner of Google, Youtube, and other vile Howling Evil slimy manipulating lying twisted Legal Personhood of Satan) for a shake-down, bribes, perhaps other things.
.
https://www.cnbc.com/ [cnbc.com]/doj-and-state-ags-likely-to-file-ant
.
Remember when Google's CEO Sundar Pichai clearly lied to Congress about not manipulating information and interfering
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing .. Lameness filter engaged ..
because I start and end with Pleasantries and wishing G o d blesses you,
or what?
https://www.facebook.com/Steve... [facebook.com]
Go look at the post and note what these putrid cnts that design such don't want you to see,
as if you are forced to read it!
This is the kind of ugly that our social media has become, 'filters' that engage - to the tastes of people who think
you should not learn or read some things, as if you are a child, and they your grasping ball-crushing vile mother.
.
I was do