Google Misled Publishers and Advertisers, Unredacted Lawsuit Alleges (wsj.com) 6
Google misled publishers and advertisers for years about the pricing and processes of its ad auctions, creating secret programs that deflated sales for some companies while increasing prices for buyers, according to newly unredacted allegations and details in a lawsuit by state attorneys general. From a report: Meanwhile, Google pocketed the difference between what it told publishers and advertisers that an ad cost and used the pool of money to manipulate future auctions to expand its digital monopoly, the newly unredacted complaint alleges. The documents cite internal correspondence in which Google employees said some of these practices amounted to growing its business through "insider information." The unredacted filing on Friday in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York came after a federal judge ruled this week that an amended complaint filed last year could be unsealed. The lawsuit was first filed in December 2020, with many sections of the complaint redacted. Since then, the redactions have been stripped away in a series of rulings, providing fresh details about the states' argument that Google runs a monopoly that harmed ad-industry competitors and publishers.
Every company tends to follow the money (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, without the limitation of the Subject field, the opening statement should be more like
"Every 'economically successful' company tends to twist its business model to follow the biggest revenue streams"
and the followup question is
"Why has the phrase 'economically successful' become so nearly synonymous with 'evil'?"
In contrast to the advertisers who are paying actual money to the google and therefore should have standing to sue for damages, I doubt whether the publishers have much of a legal leg to stand on. I'm sort of in their boat, since I create some content that is 'held' in the google cloud. I used to think that was a reasonable tradeoff for services received, but these days I feel more and more like I'm dealing with the devil and I increasingly wish there were better alternatives for almost every google service I use. I would even speculate that it is mentally harmful to "do business" with a company you dislike too strongly.
Personal disclaimer needed? I used to think the google was a good company and sincerely trying to make the world a better place. Now I think the google cares for nothing beyond getting more money. And of course they will lie to the suckers whenever they believe the cost of getting sued is lower than the profits. Best business practices. MUST MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE! [In the voice of Nomad.] (But I have already noted that I regard share prices as delusional these years.)
By the way, did anyone else see a 404 when you tried to look at this story? It was the #2 story on the front page when I first saw it.
Farther by the way, There is a slight risk of this comment being an FP, but I can't think of any reason to stall longer... Isn't there anything else I can add to it?
Re: (Score:2)
Rats. I thought I was safe. But I'll go ahead and say why I think FP matters to the "reputation" of the resulting discussions. https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net] might not be the best citation, but it's relevant. My summary of the research I read some years back is that the research showed that a positive first review didn't matter, but a negative first review tended to result in a lower average product rating, and I strongly suspect there is a similar (or corresponding?) effect in Slashdot discussions. The
Re: (Score:2)
Because we've done a terrible job of enforcing our laws. If we did our best to enforce the law, the companies that got ahead would be the ones that were most innovative and best at serving their customers. Instead, we've done less and less to enforce the law, so the companies that do the best are the ones that take advantage and break it. Even companies that want to obey the law are forced to if they want to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Concurrence on the first part and thanks for the clarifying information in the second part. I forgot about that business relationship.
I'll add that I see the root of the problem as the legalized bribery of the referees. The politicians are paid to rig the rules of the game in favor of bigger über alles, and therefore I think the best solution approach would be revisions to the corporate tax system that favor freedom over bigness. As it relates to abusive monopolies, the key metrics of abuse should be m
Why do people use Chrome? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Au contraire. Compared to Windows, Chrome has become a tiny piece of spyware.
But mostly just want to remind people why Microsoft might like Chrome enough to "borrow" bits for that Edge spyware.
(I do not use Chrome, but I think Firefox is losing the battle against the giants and is getting near the brink...)