US Asks Judge To Break Up Google's Ad Tech Business (theguardian.com) 41
The U.S. government is seeking to break up Google's advertising technology business after a judge ruled the company holds an illegal monopoly over ad tools for publishers, marking the second such antitrust case following a similar request to divest Chrome. The Guardian reports: "We have a defendant who has found ways to defy" the law, US government lawyer Julia Tarver Wood told a federal court in Virginia, as she urged the judge to dismiss Google's assurance that it would change its behavior. "Leaving a recidivist monopolist" intact was not appropriate to solve the issue, she added. [...] The US government specifically alleged that Google controls the market for publishing banner ads on websites, including those of many creators and small news providers.
The hearing in a Virginia courtroom was scheduled to plan out the second phase of the trial, set for September, in which the parties will argue over how to fix the ad market to satisfy the judge's ruling. The plaintiffs argued in the first phase of the trial last year that the vast majority of websites use Google ad software products which, combined, leave no way for publishers to escape Google's advertising technology and pricing.
The district court judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with most of that reasoning, ruling last month that Google built an illegal monopoly over ad software and tools used by publishers, but partially dismissed the argument related to tools used by advertisers. The US government said it would use the trial to recommend that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations, as Google could not be trusted to change its ways. "Behavioral remedies are not sufficient because you can't prevent Google from finding a new way to dominate," Tarver Wood said.
Google countered that it would recommend that it agree to a binding commitment that it would share information with advertisers and publishers on its ad tech platforms. Google lawyer Karen Dunn did, however, acknowledge the "trust issues" raised in the case and said the company would accept monitoring to guarantee any commitments made to satisfy the judge. Google is also arguing that calls for divestment are not appropriate in this case, which Brinkema swiftly refused as an argument. The judge urged both sides to mediate, stressing that coming to a compromise solution would be cost-effective and more efficient than running a weeks-long trial.
The hearing in a Virginia courtroom was scheduled to plan out the second phase of the trial, set for September, in which the parties will argue over how to fix the ad market to satisfy the judge's ruling. The plaintiffs argued in the first phase of the trial last year that the vast majority of websites use Google ad software products which, combined, leave no way for publishers to escape Google's advertising technology and pricing.
The district court judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with most of that reasoning, ruling last month that Google built an illegal monopoly over ad software and tools used by publishers, but partially dismissed the argument related to tools used by advertisers. The US government said it would use the trial to recommend that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations, as Google could not be trusted to change its ways. "Behavioral remedies are not sufficient because you can't prevent Google from finding a new way to dominate," Tarver Wood said.
Google countered that it would recommend that it agree to a binding commitment that it would share information with advertisers and publishers on its ad tech platforms. Google lawyer Karen Dunn did, however, acknowledge the "trust issues" raised in the case and said the company would accept monitoring to guarantee any commitments made to satisfy the judge. Google is also arguing that calls for divestment are not appropriate in this case, which Brinkema swiftly refused as an argument. The judge urged both sides to mediate, stressing that coming to a compromise solution would be cost-effective and more efficient than running a weeks-long trial.
Re:Those evil EU Bureaucrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I think this time DOGE will fire the enforcers before they can enforce what needs enforcing,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Those evil EU Bureaucrats (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the opposite by a long stretch. And M$ today is still a much bigger monopoly than Google today.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd say the opposite by a long stretch. And M$ today is still a much bigger monopoly than Google today.
I can run an entire operating system that is devoid of M$ bullshit.
The same can hardly be said for every browser pre-infected with Google search.
Re: (Score:2)
Word and Excel are far more prominent, but no one is forced to use them. Libre Office is good enough for 95% of th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The last time a tech behemoth was found guilty and remedies were contemplated, the Bush administration turned it into a slap on the wrist for MIcrosoft.
WTF is it with idiots always blaming the president for everything that didn't go their way during his term just because they voted for the other guy? The Bush admin had nothing to do with it. Microsoft was found guilty, then the judge ran his mouth to the media about the case, which is a code of conduct violation, and Microsoft used that as the basis for its appeal. This was all during the Clinton admin. During that original trial, if you look at Microsoft's, especially Bill Gate's disposition in particular
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you immediately picked up on blaming some random foreign citizen
It really doesn't even matter. Blaming anything on any federal politicians at all at that time doesn't make any sense whatsoever in this case, regardless of who it was. The shit went sideways before Bush was even in office because the judge fucked up, but according to you, Bush somehow derailed before he was in office because...reasons... I get it, people in some other countries love to examine America's ass crack with a microscope while seemingly understanding relatively little about what their own even lo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with using rhetorical tricks in this way is that I deliberately don't reply, regardless of what I think of your arguments. Chat again next time I'm sure, when you've calmed down.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Yes I smacked you down because of the name calling.
No, all you did is prove that everything you think you know comes from tabloids.
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush admin had nothing to do with it. Microsoft was found guilty,
Whoever told you that lied to you. There is plenty of evidence that Bush was going to help Microsoft, even before he was elected. He was a Microsoft share holder.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what's hilarious? I posted a link to this EXACT article three hours before you did, just to show another idiot how stupid the editorializing was at the time. Look at the timestamp of my post and compare it to yours. You could have saved yourself some time. I'll quote the relevant bits:
In a statement, the department said it had streamlined the case in order to achieve a quicker settlement and obtain "prompt, effective and certain relief for consumers".
But Microsoft's critics and consumer campaigners immediately denounced the decision as politically motivated and strategically questionable.
Although most legal experts considered a break-up unlikely, few expected the government to remove the option from the negotiating table.
Nobody thought it would be likely? Gee, sounds a lot like what I said, doesn't it? But let's look at literally the only mention of the Bush admin in the entire fucking article:
He also raised the possibility that the pro-business Bush administration had cooled towards the four-year legal battle. "It's no secret that Microsoft had thrown its weight behind the Bush campaign," he said.
However, the Bush justice department has taken a tough public stance on the case.
Speculation followed by the only evidence
Re: (Score:3)
the Bush administration turned it into a slap on the wrist for MIcrosoft
That's quite revisionist. Legal pundits long assumed throughout the entire legal battle that it wasn't possible to break up a company the size of Microsoft effectively to achieve what their goal was, as the ruling was the result of a tie in with products developed in a common team (it wasn't like the internet explorer was a separate division). Additionally it wasn't the bush administration that turned it into a slap on the wrist. The Circuit Courts found that ruling could not be enforced the way it was prop
Re: (Score:3)
The last time a tech behemoth was found guilty and remedies were contemplated, the Bush administration turned it into a slap on the wrist for MIcrosoft.
Somehow I think this time DOGE will fire the enforcers before they can enforce what needs enforcing,
Name the last mega-corp that didn’t pre-buy their wrist slaps with lawmakers, and I’ll believe there’s something to see here.
Doing illegal shit, is an actual risk to everyone else. For those who buy and make the laws via politics, it’s merely a cost of doing business.
Look at the last anti-trust suggestion. Divest Chrome? Give me a break. Politically-infused jokes, always smell the same. Besides, watching Google “comply” with anti-trust via some loophole expanding tax
Get it done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google and Trump are in negotiations on how much Google needs to pay to make the lawsuit go away.
It's not getting done anytime soon because the Art of the Deal means that Trump is asking Google what Google can do for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't that extortion? when the one with the power offers to make bad thing go away for a price, the reverse would be bribery where if google offers to pay a bribe to keep their racket intact
I believe we have an official job and title for that activity that makes all of it quite legal, and without such negative terminology.
They’re called Fucking Politicians. We used to call them Representatives back when we liked to pretend they represented The People. But it’s quite clear who lawmakers represent today. And who is paying them.
Surprised? Don’t be. These are the same arrogant cunts who believe Insider Trading is a fucking job perk.
Re: (Score:2)
There is potential for this to work since Google's advertisement business is effectively a completely separate subdivision within the company. This is legally significant compared to the Microsoft case back in the day, where there was no legal remedy of breaking up MS that could have resolved in addressing the primary anti-trust ruling. Microsoft didn't have a separate internet targeted division at the time which could be separated from their browser work.
Google the recidivist monopolist :o (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except every IE/Edge, Safari and Firefox user opening it for the first time...
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yea and Chrome.
Google is a monopolist in ads (Score:2)
Thi
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal monopoly means they were engaged in anticompetitive behavior by leveraging said monopoly to stifle competition, there's a key distinction there. That's what people (and the law, mostly) care about.
If you're the dominant business in a sector because you just do it the best and basically aren't a dick about it you generally won't run afoul of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No one was forced to use Internet Explorer, except when they wanted to browse the Internet after bundled IE with Windows and drove Netscape out of business.
No one was forced to install Windows, except when they wanted to use a PC and Microsoft was threatening PC OEMs that provided alternatives.
No one was forced to buy a telephone line from the Bell system, so long as they didn't mind not having a telephone in the United States.
No one was forced to lease an IBM punchcard tabulating machine, except when IBM h
Re: (Score:3)
Who's the bingus here?
Comparing Microsoft, Google, and IBM to AT&T and Standard Oil is completely bogus.
AT&T and especially Standard were indeed illegal monopolies. Standard, as you said, simply bought up the competition and build a vertically integrated business that made it impossible for anyone else to enter the market. AT&T built a vertical business by owning all the lines, either the long lines directly, or the local lines through the Baby Bells, and disallowing any hardware that wasn't man
Re: (Score:2)
The core problem is in the design of the economic system. The way it is right now it will always be desirable to be a monopolist or cartel (cooperating oligopoly), and that will always lead to a broken market with abuse of power (fucking over the consumer, because they can't really go elsewhere).
Calling severely broken markets 'not illegal' doesn't make them less broken or less dysfunctional.
Should not take years... (Score:2)
Anti-trust should not take years. Ruling, delay, appeal, delay, ruling, delay, appeal, delay...
Anti-trust needs to be simple and largely automatic. When a company exceeds a certain size, it should be prohibited from M&A activity. When it exceeds a certain, even larger size, it should be forced to divest. No discussions, no court proceedings.
Have the politicians learned nothing from 2008 and "too big to fail"?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't thought it through well, but a possible simple largely self-regulating solution might be to have a significant progressive corporate tax system.
Google Should Have Been Broken Up a Decade Ago (Score:2)
Ad prices increased 10-50x in a decade (Score:2)
A year or two ago I was trying to buy a localized ad on Google for a local institution. We're talking about something where, if you were within 15 minutes of the institution, you'd get an ad if you searched for "[instutitions] near [place]". No ads were showing for this case at all. From my limited experience 10-15 years ago, an ad like this in an empty space could be bought for a few cents per click. Now the price was a few dollars.
Maybe you think ads should die, etc., but the money paid to Google and Face