US Prepares To Challenge Google's Online Ad Dominance (reuters.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: For years, Google has faced complaints about how it dominates the online advertising market. Many of the concerns stem from the internet giant's suite of software known as Google Ad Manager, which websites around the world use to sell ads on their sites. The technology conducts split-second auctions to place ads each time a user loads a page. The dominance of that technology has landed Google in federal court. On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will preside over the start of a trial in which the Department of Justice accuses the company of abusing control of its ad technology and violating antitrust law (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source).
It would be Google's second antitrust trial in less than a year. In August, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search, a major victory for the Justice Department. The new trial is the latest salvo by federal antitrust regulators against Big Tech, testing a century-old competition law against companies that have reshaped the way people shop, communicate and consume information. Federal regulators have also filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple,Amazon and Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, saying those companies have also abused their power. Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said in a blog post on Sunday that the Justice Department was "picking winners and losers in a highly competitive industry."
"With the cost of ads going down and the number of ads sold going up, the market is working," she said. "The DOJ's case risks inefficiencies and higher prices -- the last thing that America's economy or our small businesses need right now."
It would be Google's second antitrust trial in less than a year. In August, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in online search, a major victory for the Justice Department. The new trial is the latest salvo by federal antitrust regulators against Big Tech, testing a century-old competition law against companies that have reshaped the way people shop, communicate and consume information. Federal regulators have also filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple,Amazon and Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, saying those companies have also abused their power. Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said in a blog post on Sunday that the Justice Department was "picking winners and losers in a highly competitive industry."
"With the cost of ads going down and the number of ads sold going up, the market is working," she said. "The DOJ's case risks inefficiencies and higher prices -- the last thing that America's economy or our small businesses need right now."
I challenged google a long time ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...ad blocking tools like the hosts file ...
Well, if all you want is not to see ads, an ad blocker should be sufficient, and there's no particular need to faff around with the host files and whatnot. If however your goal is not to be tracked, then this is not sufficient. Google has multiple streams of information, many of them not originating from your computer.
For example, they're grabbing your offline credit card transactions [businessinsider.com]. They're boasting that they get 70% of all physical store purchases in the USA. No host file can defend you from this kind
Re: (Score:2)
...ad blocking tools like the hosts file ...
Well, if all you want is not to see ads, an ad blocker should be sufficient, and there's no particular need to faff around with the host files and whatnot. If however your goal is not to be tracked, then this is not sufficient. Google has multiple streams of information, many of them not originating from your computer.
For example, they're grabbing your offline credit card transactions [businessinsider.com]. They're boasting that they get 70% of all physical store purchases in the USA. No host file can defend you from this kind snooping - the only defense would be to pay exclusively in cash, which, in this day and age is becoming really impractical.
Ostensibly, they need this info in order to measure the efficiency of their adds (that is, they want to see if you're actually buying the items they advertised to you). I personally doubt very much that that's all they're using the data for and aren't adding your off-line purchases to your ad profile anyway.
A legitimate question: How in the bloody blue fucking hell is it legal for a company not involved in the transaction to get your offline credit card transaction history? And, since they're bragging about it publicly, how do the regulators not have exploding heads on TV every night talking about it? WTF? I know we've got a wild-west style approach to capitalism, but this seems a step too far even for the typical "RAH RAH ALL BUSINESS IS GOOD" crowd. I doubt they want Google tracking their offline life as wel
Ahem, no. (Score:1)
What America's economy needs right now is emphatically not more fucking banner ads. What a completely head-too-far-up-your-own-ass take on the situation that is.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Of all the industries I'd like to see more competition in, the ad industry is not one of them. It's like saying AIDS has a monopoly on the immunocompromising disease market.
Re: (Score:1)
Eh, I'm not quite sure you followed my meaning correctly, but I guess it doesn't matter really, because either way as consumers we lose on this one.
The Ad Industry is not working (Score:3)
The online system is destroying every other form of advertising and the supported industries around them. It's mechanism of user/device tracking is not just unnecessary but also highly invasive.
The DOJ should be focusing on elimination of tracking. Fix the ad industry from the bottom up.
Break it tf up. (Score:2)
Corrected story title (Score:3)
"US Incumbent Politicians And Their Appointees Prepare To Get Soundbytes And Screen Time For Future Campaign Content Before Quietly Walking Back Whatever Reforms They Loudly Announced At The Beginning"
Re: (Score:2)
are the doj elected politicians ya silly goose
we really need civics 101 for adults
"US Incumbent Politicians And Their Appointees...
We really need Reading 101 for adults who are as silly as you, gander.
Re: (Score:2)
"Random nobody posts impotent rage to website next generations won't know existed."
I mean... If we want to get honest about other people's efforts in life.
Re: (Score:2)
"Random nobody posts impotent rage to website next generations won't know existed."
I mean... If we want to get honest about other people's efforts in life.
Fine by me. I am 100% comfortable with accurate descriptions and being truthful about my motives and priorities.
Which is why I boldly expect the same out of the government figures to whom I loan a portion of my power on a temporary basis.
It sounds like you were attempting the common tactic of provoking a shame response. It's typically very effective in provoking a flamewar with most people.
However, [waves Jedi hand] that's not the gotcha you're looking for with me. Shame is for people who are deceiving them
Google will ruin the justice department (Score:5, Insightful)
and get away with it, like IBM and Microsoft did [cnet.com]
Famously, IBM outlawyered the justice department so badly they spent the entirety of their yearly budget on that one case alone. That allowed IBM to drag out the case for 13 years until that dirtbag Reagan was elected in office and finally dropped the case.
Microsoft did the exact same thing and managed to hold out until that other dirtbag Dubya got elected and reverted the verdict to a slight slap on the wrist.
Google has an order of magnitude more money and more clout than IBM and Microsoft had. They'll annihilate the justice department. Even if no dirtbag POTUS drops the case against Google, they can comfortably ruin the taxpayers for decades with legal fees.
Re: (Score:3)
It's barely been 5 weeks since Google already lost their first antitrust case:
Google loses massive antitrust case over its search dominance [npr.org]
These things can happen if there is the political will to make them happen. Like you said though who we all decide to put in the position to prosecute these things matters, so maybe we stick with the people who in fact are finally pursuing antitrust again after 30 years seriously again.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty bold predictions for someone who pretty much all but admitted they have no idea what the case was about or what the governments claim against google was. To say it was "interfering with the success of a company" is either completely incurious talking out your ass or just malicious deception on your part.
You can disagree with the outcome of the case but you are completely off on the premise to begin with, saying it's "interfering with the success of a company" is just off the mark, you are out in a pa
In only a decade or two (Score:2)
The court case will finally come to a conclusion.
Monopsony (Score:2)