US Asks Judge To Break Up Google's Ad Tech Business (theguardian.com) 24
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:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say the opposite by a long stretch. And M$ today is still a much bigger monopoly than Google today.
Re: (Score:3, 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)
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
Get it done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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:1)
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:2)
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
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"?