Texas Plans To Sue Google for Alleged Anticompetitive Behavior (cnn.com) 38
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Wednesday that he will soon file a multistate antitrust lawsuit against Google and its advertising business, alleging that the company has stifled competition and enjoys "monopolistic power." From a report: In a tweet, Paxton said the lawsuit will be filed on Wednesday. "This goliath of a company is using its power to manipulate the market, destroy competition and harm you, the consumer," Paxton said in a video accompanying the tweet. The text of the complaint was not immediately available. But a court record shows that nine other states are participating in the suit, including Kentucky, South Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah. The lawsuit marks the second antitrust suit by government officials to hit Google in the US this year. The Justice Department took the search giant to court over similar allegations in October. Eleven states joined the suit at the time. It also follows a lawsuit by more than 40 attorneys general against Facebook alleging it has abused a monopoly in social media.
I guess sedition doesn't pay like it used to (Score:3)
Good luck with this particular windmill, Ken.
Re: (Score:2)
But a court record shows that nine other states are participating in the suit, including Kentucky, South Dakota, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and Utah.
Weren't they the states he was suing for election fraud a few days ago?
Short answer (Score:2)
No.
But, judging by that previous blast of hot air, we can assume this is more of the same. I'm sure at least some of the other states would like to see some kind of regulation applied here. But 80% of them have chosen not to waste their time with this dickhead. Coincidentally, that's exactly the same percentage who have joined in NY's suit against the Zuckergarten.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention. Accusations of "monopoly" are the easiest for Joe the Plumber to understand, so if they're intending to make a splashy public announcement, that's the word they'll use. But it's not very sound legally. If they were serious about really fixing the issues, they'd be drafting up new regulations. And at that point, the giants would take a curious interest, and crush Ken Paxton with the same sledgehammer that all the other corporations use on him.
Tincture of genius (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. And invest in popcorn companies. I'm gonna need LOTS of popcorn.
But seriously, folks. Paxton must be angling (and hard) for a pardon for his other little problems. Many of them do involve federal crimes that are still being investigated. Not sure where the google fits into picture, though pretty sure that's where some of the evidence is located. "Possession [of the data] is nine points of the law."
So we should invest in autograph signing pens? Or sharpies? "He who need not be named" is goinna
Re: (Score:2)
It's times like these when I just can't figure out which side to root for!
Re: (Score:1)
Recent events prove that republicans are not only corrupt, but anti democracy. They can only win by cheating thru gerrymander.
Re: (Score:2)
Come and take it
You know you are in trouble (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You know you are in trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Irrational big tech hatred is popular/populist right now - nothing surprising about this at all. This retard, like many other retards, think Google/YouTube/Twitter/etc... are "libruhls tryin' tuh censors muh".
It's funny to me how much the definition of a "monopoly" has changed. Used to be you were someone who had sole or very nearly sole control over something, typically a physically limited resource or one tightly government controlled, think oil or phone lines.
Nowadays you can have literally 50 alternatives but they still dream it's a "monopoly" because people _choose_ one thing over another in this sea of choices. I used to think of it as a "demand side monopoly" which is an asinine concept in itself, but really thinking about it more it's a monopoly on the eyeballs of morons. The more moron eyeballs you attract the more someone imagines you to be a monopoly.
Re: You know you are in trouble (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up, though it's still a bit naive on the problems of monopoly. For example, having too many options can still be a monopoly situation. When the choices become too confusing, the choices can be manipulated. (And amusingly enough, due to the paradox of choice the customers may well feel more dissatisfied.) Alternatively, the options can be fakes, like the "options" Microsoft offers for different flavors of Windows. Or you can have the bizarre case of Firefox as a browser option that is "charitably"
Re: (Score:2)
And I still hate typos. I do preview, but...
s/looking like //
Re: (Score:1)
And I still think the best solution approach is to change the tax code against market dominance.
No, that's bogus. You want to penalize success merely for being successful. The GP's comments on monopoly are right on target.
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Thank you for agreeing (Score:1)
Of course you have a funny way of showing it, but that's cool
Talk later.
toodles...
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Re: (Score:2)
"a nearly indicted politician"
Actually indicted politician
Overlap (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting.
The States that joined Texes in the "Texas v. Pennsylvania" voting lawsuit were:
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia
The States that are joining the Google lawsuit are:
Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah.
Intersection: Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, Utah (total 6).
Re: (Score:2)
Why haven't any of the states where they crap indoors joined this lawsuit?
Euroweenies (Score:2)
If those euroweeinies don't like it google can LEAVE and they can make their own... oh what it's Texas? Hm carry on then.
I'm just going to bing Ken Paxton (Score:2)
Just kidding.
Indeed (Score:2)
People who don't have the money, the ideas, to build a search engine for 20 years but they still want a piece of this.
Nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it.
His Full title (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do reporters keep getting his title wrong? It's "Texas Attorney General Indicted for Securities Fraud and Under FBI Investigation for Abuse of Position and Bribery with a related Whistleblower Lawsuit" Ken Paxton. I know the thing is getting long, but the man deserves y'all use the whole thing.
Nice little company you have there... (Score:2)
now just move the headquarters to Texas and we can forget about all this.
Campaigning by legal action at absurd high (low?) (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Gingrich and company's "revolution" of 1994, Republican elected officials have taken the process of campaigning via legislation and legal action to staggering lows. They pass laws to impede abortion that they fully well know will be struck down by courts, they pass laws to suppress minority votes, and they start lawsuits that they know they will lose solely for the purpose of getting free publicity before their base. The notion of solving problems has disappeared completely from the GOP playbook. The Texas AG's suit against WI, MI, PA and GA was a prime example, and his followup against Google--a company Republicans accuse of "censoring conservatives"--is the next one.
This lawsuit will be tossed in 5 minutes. Google will stand up and say that the monopoly accusation is falsified by the fact that Facebook, Bing, Amazon and Adobe all sell plenty of ads.
Alas, the ongoing actions against FB will fall similarly flat because the collective corpus of our top lawyers apparently do not possess enough technical knowledge to understand how these businesses work. If they did, they would be prosecuting FB's criminal behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Before the Sherman Act, it did not matter how you got there, the test was where are things NOW. How and Why was not relevant. Pure market share was the benchmark.
I'm not aware of any US antitrust law that used or uses market share as a "benchmark" for anything. Can you provide a cite?
Re: Campaigning by legal action at absurd high (lo (Score:1)
Texas vs Google (Score:2)
This will fatten a lot of lawyers retirement funds.
Third party cookies (Score:1)
Who cares? (Score:2)
Anything that stars with "Texas Attorney General says.." is guaranteed to be political bullshit
Not interested.
Does Texas like filing frivolous lawsuits? (Score:2)
It's not like "enjoying a monopolistic power" is a crime. And if you're going to claim that they are stifling competition you better have some actual evidence with specifics.
The absolute state of slashdot (Score:1)