Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Advertising Government The Courts

Internal Google Emails Presented at Antitrust Trial (msn.com) 28

Posted by EditorDavid from the search-results dept.
In the antitrust trial alleging Google had an ad-selling monopoly, "government lawyers have said some of their strongest evidence is in Google's own internal communications," reports the Wall Street Journal: [In 2010] a new crop of ad-tech companies were threatening Google's bottom line. "One way to make sure we don't get further behind in the market is picking up the one with the most traction and parking it somewhere..." [wrote YouTube Chief Executive Neal Mohan, who previously ran Google's display-ads business]. Google ended up buying one such company, AdMeld, for $400 million in 2011. Google shut down AdMeld two years later, after incorporating some of the startup's technology into its ad exchange, known commonly as AdX.

The Justice Department argued that AdMeld was part of a larger trend: Google acquiring nascent rivals to corner the market and then locking customers into using its products by conditioning access to one software tool on them paying for another... In a 2016 email introduced by the government, Google executive Jonathan Bellack asked colleagues: "Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]...." The Justice Department also cited a 2018 email from another then-executive, Chris LaSala, who raised concerns internally over the 20% cut that Google takes from many of its AdX customers, saying Google was extracting "irrationally high rent" from users. "I don't think there is 20% of value in comparing two bids," wrote LaSala. "AdX is not providing additional liquidity to the market. It is simply running the auction."

Another former Google executive, Eisar Lipkovitz, testified that Google's omnipresence in ad-tech gives rise to conflicts of interest. Lipkovitz was rebuffed when he tried to get Google to lower the cut it took from AdX, he testified in a prerecorded deposition. The Justice Department finished presenting its case on Friday. Other witnesses included Google customers. One was Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, who said she felt she had no choice but to use Google technology because the search giant has such market power that switching to another ad server would have meant losing out on millions in advertising revenue.
Google's lawyer countered that "There will be no witness in this case who can say with clarity where this industry is going in the next five years."

Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internal Google Emails Presented at Antitrust Trial More

Internal Google Emails Presented at Antitrust Trial

Comments Filter:

  • Ah, yes, the Adobe model (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday September 22, 2024 @03:33PM (#64808259)

    The Justice Department argued that AdMeld was part of a larger trend: Google acquiring nascent rivals to corner the market and then locking customers into using its products by conditioning access to one software tool on them paying for another.

    It's definitely a slimy, customer-hostile practice that IMO should be tackled by the government, as seems to be happening here. But unfortunately it's also a practice many companies have been allowed to pursue with impunity during the past several decades...

    • Re:Ah, yes, the Adobe model (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Sunday September 22, 2024 @06:35PM (#64808523) Homepage Journal

      This is the natural lifecycle of a business.

      First "something" changes. It could be a new technology, or the sudden widespread availability of an old one, or a sudden change in political climate, a cultural shift, whatever. But this change creates business opportunities, and many small businesses crop up to meet them.

      Next, these small businesses compete directly against one another, defeating each other and growing by doing so.

      Then once the market is characterized by a smallish number of large businesses all in the same industry, that's when they start courting each other for mergers, or performing outright hostile takeovers.

      Then, once you have fewer businesses than you can count on one hand, they just form a cartel, which is just as bad as a monopoly. Sometimes they DO wind up as an outright monopoly. Either way, the end result is the same: low quality, high prices, barriers-to-entry to ensure that no would-be competitor could ever get a foothold, economic suppression, and general terribleness for everyone except the ones at the very top.

      This cycle has happened over, and over, and over again through history. It is simply "how things work."

      The only force that prevents this is government regulation. In order to keep the economy healthy, the government must enforce trust-busting laws, deny mergers (when in the late stage, anyway), and some times force break-ups of companies that have become too big.

      Competition between businesses is the one and only thing that makes capitalism beneficial to everyone, but late in this cycle there is no competition anymore, and that ruins all the benefits. So, it's the government's job to keep the competition going. And our own government has been doing quite a terrible job at that.

      • Well if governments weren't bought by large companies that wouldn't be such a problem, while lobbying and politicians have to raise funding exits this will not change in any significant way. Also if you want to lobby do it in public so everyone can hear what you are saying. Election advertising should be publicly funded, with a limit on spending, it should be your ideas that do the talking not your money. To those people who say do you want to pay, the answer is hell yes, I am paying anyway at least if its

        • These repeated government investigations USA and other countries have common goals

          1) Get google and big tech to pay up and pay more taxes
          2) Get google and big tech to propagate messages acceptable by governments
          3) Get google and big tech to contribute to political campaigns
          4) Get google and big tech to become 'good corporate citizens' and fund schools, green energy and whatever politicians can turn into a campaign event for reelections
          5) Get google and big tech to refrain from helping to spread any negative

      • The only force that prevents this is government regulation. In order to keep the economy healthy, the government must enforce trust-busting laws, deny mergers (when in the late stage, anyway), and some times force break-ups of companies that have become too big.

        That's not the only force, or even the most effective force. If you look at the history of anti-trust actions, there are few cases where government action was what broke the monopoly or cartel. What more often happens is that "something" changes, again, and the lumbering monopoly is unable to adapt effectively. The story is muddied, though, because usually by the time that happens the monopoly is already busy defending itself from anti-trust actions which contribute to its difficulty in adapting, so the go

  • Give me a web site that I can use ad/tracker blockers.
    I have ZERO interest in your "Apps" which are only there to information gather.
    When I am forced to use them (travel) they get deleted as soon as my need goes.

    • Re:Yeah nah.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Sunday September 22, 2024 @04:22PM (#64808351)
      I ran a small manufacturing business during the transition from magazine ads to Google Adwords. The transition destroyed or seriously damaged many technical magazines and made it virtually impossible to track leads. Back in the day, magazines had "bingo cards" in the back. Interested customers could circle numbers corresponding to ads in the magazine and drop the card in the mail. The company would receive a monthly report of inquiries and preprinted labels that could be used to mail literature. The customer could also indicate that they would like a telephone call, which would be handled by a salesperson. The whole operation was civilized and personal and the company would not waste much time on frivolous inquiries.

      Contrast that with Adwords where you had to dynamically bid on your position on the page, got random click hits that rarely had anything to do with potential closed sales, and cost a fsking fortune. Adwords pretty much destroyed the ability for a small company to maintain a consistent and respectful customer presence.

      • made it virtually impossible to track leads.

        My experience was the opposite. Use a different landing page for each online ad, and you know exactly where those leads are coming from.

        A/B testing is also way easier online.

        Back in the day, magazines had "bingo cards" in the back.

        I never had good response rates from bingo cards. We had a minimum wage worker apply the sticker to a mailer, but that rarely led to a sale.

        At least with online ads, I don't have to pay for the mailer and postage.

        The whole operation was civilized and personal

        The customer is interested in the product, and the vendor is interested in making a profit. Neither is seeking a "civilized a

        • At least with online ads, I don't have to pay for the mailer and postage.

          That's why paper ads were better, they cost money and that put a big limit on the amount of them bombarding us. No unskippable video ads on paper either. I wonder how heavy all those ads would be if printed out? On the other hand, adblock doesn't work so good on paper mail.

    • The United Airlines app is actually well-designed. It always puts exactly the information you need right now right in front of you. But it's unfortunately rare in that regard.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      Apps have multiple downsides for the user.
        - They can track you.
        - They can serve unblockable ads.
        - They can behave in malicious ways by grabbing data from your other apps. This behavior can be inside a third party library.

  • Yeah ok, "Eric" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Sunday September 22, 2024 @03:40PM (#64808281)

    Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, "It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement..."

    That's the equivalent of "But look! The future isn't in ads, so you shouldn't look at all the illegal things we did in the past!"

    • Your point is especially relevant since the question involved isn't whether Google is a monopoly, it's whether they abused the monopoly. Their lawyer is arguing something that has no weight legally and is addressing the wrong question. IANAL

  • Or maybe think before you do evil. I guess arrogance and stupidity are to be had in spades in the "leadership" of something like Google.

  • ... and the rest will fix itself.

  • "Is you takin' notes on a criminal f__kin' conspiracy?"

Slashdot Top Deals

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis

Close