States Are Leaning Toward a Push To Break Up Google's Ad Tech Business (cnbc.com) 29
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The state attorneys general investigating Google for potential antitrust violations are leaning towards pushing for a breakup of its ad technology business as part of an expected suit, people familiar with the situation told CNBC. Fifty attorneys general have been probing Google's business practices for months, alongside a similar probe being led by the U.S. Department of Justice. Both the states and the DOJ are looking to file a suit against the internet giant as soon as within the next few months, people familiar with the situation told CNBC.
The states and the Justice Department have not yet officially decided whether to combine their expected suits, the people said, though they have been collaborating closely. Both have been investigating Google's search, ad technology and android business. The attorneys general investigating Google, which is owned by Alphabet, haven't yet definitively ruled out pushing for alternatives for its ad technology business, like imposing restrictions on how it runs its business, one of the sources said. A suit may also include a push for both that option and breaking up the ad tech business. "Critics have said that Google bundles its ad tools so that rivals can't afford to match its offerings and that its operation of search results, YouTube, Gmail and other services to hinder ad competition," reports CNBC. "They also say that Google owns all sides of the 'auction exchange' through which ads are sold and bought, giving it an unfair advantage."
Google's two main deals that provided it the crucial foothold into advertising technology, DoubleClick in 2007 and AdMob in 2009, were years ago. Because of this, it may be difficult for Google to push for a break up of the business.
The states and the Justice Department have not yet officially decided whether to combine their expected suits, the people said, though they have been collaborating closely. Both have been investigating Google's search, ad technology and android business. The attorneys general investigating Google, which is owned by Alphabet, haven't yet definitively ruled out pushing for alternatives for its ad technology business, like imposing restrictions on how it runs its business, one of the sources said. A suit may also include a push for both that option and breaking up the ad tech business. "Critics have said that Google bundles its ad tools so that rivals can't afford to match its offerings and that its operation of search results, YouTube, Gmail and other services to hinder ad competition," reports CNBC. "They also say that Google owns all sides of the 'auction exchange' through which ads are sold and bought, giving it an unfair advantage."
Google's two main deals that provided it the crucial foothold into advertising technology, DoubleClick in 2007 and AdMob in 2009, were years ago. Because of this, it may be difficult for Google to push for a break up of the business.
Re:Excellent (Score:4, Interesting)
Adtech at Google is 90% of revenues, if not more, so this will lead to the creation of independent mini-Googles, since Adtech can't exist without properties to feed ads into (traffic acquisition costs would make it untenable). That said, this won't lead to a decrease in censorship and mind control, since mini-googles will still be run entirely by left-wing extremists.
I fail to see how this is anything to get excited about, as a consumer. So the ads are cheaper maybe? That would just mean more ads.
Here's how (Score:1)
Ads do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be shown somewhere. So you can expect more search engines (primary sale mechanism for ads), more news portals, more email providers, etc etc, and therefore no singular point of control over any of it. In other words, you can expect actual competition to re-emerge.
Re: (Score:3)
Google should not have been allowed to purchase DoubleClick.
Re: Excellent (Score:2)
It would have made no difference if theyâ(TM)d had to build it themselves. Doubleclick would just be another ad serving platform and google would have their own ad network doing what it does today.
Re: Excellent (Score:1)
Can we stop saying "ad network" and start saying "surveillance network"? I think at this point every commentator on Slashdot knows, at some level, that Big Brother Google's primary source of revenue is selling mass surveillance data to various gestapos worldwide. Not revenue from "ads" that no one looks at.
Let's stop pretending we're fooled.
Do they need to though? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd much rather they go after Amazon or even one of big apartment rental company conglomerates or the grocery store chains or the Hospital Industrial Complex (yeah, it's a thing, thanks Venture Capital!).
This seems more like a cheap ploy or generic political attack or something.
Re: Do they need to though? (Score:2)
Re:Do they need to though? (Score:4, Insightful)
There seems to be a general though that unless a company has absolute power or a complete monopoly then there can't be any anti-trust problems. That's not the case. It has to be big enough to cause significant market distortions. Google is not all powerful and it's not an absolute monopoly, but it's certainly big enough.
Most of Google needs to get spit off from Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
Google search and maps becomes company 1. ...and so on.
Gmail and Google docs becomes company 2.
Google Ads becomes company 3, and is forbidden to do business with any current or past google company for 5 years.
Android and chrombooks company 4.
After Google I hope they have Apple in their sights. Maybe not split up, but force Apple to eliminate their iPhone-Mac-iTunes-iMusic vendor lock-in.
Then Amazon.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: Most of Google needs to get spit off from Goog (Score:2)
One more: self driving cars.
And: their VC fund.
They probably have others we don't hear much about but that's a super reasonable split beneficial to consumers which is the entire purpose of anti-trust enforcement.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you expect the docs and gmail to survive without being able to display ads from the advertising arm once they split, which is the way they are currently financed?
Why would you allow every other company in the online docs/mail business to do that, but completely shut the freshly split Gmail/Docs off that most important revenue source?
Re: (Score:2)
They will have to display ads from any of the many competing ad services instead, which will have to compete with each other to get the business from gmail and docs, which should mean cheaper ads and ultimately better prices for consumers, or at least not all the money ending up in Alphabet's pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Which competing services? The GP says Google advertising will remain one company.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
not even slightly true.
Walmart market cap is $300bn, Google's is $900bn.
Profits are similar - Walmart's profits are tinyt becaus eit has to actually do things, Google's just rip off everyone else.
No surpise (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Being 100% anti-Republican when the Democrats already hate you is probably not the best strategy.
It's easy to fix this.
Step 1: Bait Trump into giving a couple tweets against Google (hint: he's easy to bait)
Step 2: Democrats will suddenly support Google just because it's the opposite of what Trump said.
People really are that easy to control.
Re: GOOGLE IS NOT A MONOPOLY!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Google uses their monopoly in some areas such as search and ads to over power their way into other verticals they don't control. That's not ok. That is illegal and a violation of trust laws.
And they're likely to get crushed for it.
Better late than never. Once Google is gone maybe we can get some tech innovation again.
Re: GOOGLE IS NOT A MONOPOLY!!! (Score:1)
Re: GOOGLE IS NOT A MONOPOLY!!! (Score:2)
Ok.
Re: (Score:2)
"Google is a monopoly. That's ok. Monopolies are not illegal."
No, they are legal. That doesn't make them OK.