The U.S. Justice Department has ramped up its efforts to break up Google, filing a new proposal that would force the tech giant to divest its crucial digital ad technology. This bold move follows a federal judge’s recent ruling that Google’s advertising practices have been stifling competition. The new legal battle over Google’s ad technology adds to the ongoing pressure from the government, which is also pushing to separate Google’s Chrome browser from its search engine dominance.

The Latest Legal Twist: A Call for Dismantling Google’s Ad Network

Filed in Virginia federal court on Monday, the Justice Department’s proposal seeks to have Google offload its AdX business and DFP ad platform—key technologies that connect advertisers with publishers who sell digital ad space. These tools, which are central to Google’s digital ad network, are at the heart of the government’s argument that Google has been using its market power to unfairly suppress competition.

In its 17-page filing, the Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to impose significant restrictions on Google. This includes a proposed 10-year ban on Google from running a digital ad exchange, in an effort to undercut the company’s dominance in the online advertising space.

The move comes just weeks after a federal judge ruled that Google’s ad network violated antitrust laws, but the case is far from over. Google has already signaled its intent to appeal, but the legal battle will continue through the upcoming remedy hearings, scheduled for September.

Google’s Response: Dire Warnings and Counterproposals

Unsurprisingly, Google is fighting back. The company has slammed the Justice Department’s proposal, claiming it would “cause economic chaos” and harm millions of advertisers and publishers. Google argues that dismantling its ad network would destabilize the entire digital advertising ecosystem, degrading the online experience for users.

In its counterproposal, Google suggests a less drastic solution—appointing a trustee to oversee its ad network for three years to ensure more transparency and foster competition. While the company’s plan seeks to address some of the government’s concerns, it falls short of the Justice Department’s demand for a more comprehensive breakup.

A Double Blow: Ad Network and Search Engine Scrutiny

This latest attempt to break up Google’s advertising operations is part of a larger legal assault on the company. The Justice Department is also pushing for the separation of Google’s search engine and Chrome browser, which was also ruled to be an illegal monopoly by another federal judge last August.

If the Justice Department’s proposed breakups are approved, it would mark the largest corporate breakup in the U.S. since the 1980s when AT&T was forced to split into seven regional companies. Given that Google’s search engine and ad network are at the core of its business—generating billions in revenue—this proposed breakup could have far-reaching implications.

The Stakes: A $265 Billion Business and an Evolving Market

Google’s dominance in search and digital advertising remains formidable, with its parent company, Alphabet, generating a whopping $265 billion in revenue last year. However, the company faces increasing challenges, including new legal battles and the rise of artificial intelligence, which is reshaping how consumers interact with technology and search for information online.

Despite these hurdles, Alphabet remains a corporate powerhouse, valued at $2 trillion. Yet, the ongoing antitrust cases threaten to disrupt its core business operations, forcing Google to adapt to a changing tech landscape.

What’s Next: Will Google’s Digital Empire Survive the Breakup?

As the legal drama unfolds, all eyes will be on the upcoming remedy hearings in September, which will determine whether the courts will impose the government’s proposed breakup. If the Justice Department gets its way, it would set a major precedent for how the U.S. government deals with monopolistic practices in the tech industry.

For now, Google is preparing for the long haul, even as it faces the potential loss of its advertising and search empires. Stay tuned for what could become a landmark moment in the fight against tech monopolies.

Source: AP News – US expands attempt to blow up Google with proposed teardown of its ad technology

The post Google Faces New Legal Threat as U.S. Pushes to Break Up Its Ad Tech appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once considered separating Instagram from Facebook due to fears over potential antitrust litigation, according to an email presented in court on the second day of the ongoing antitrust trial.

In the 2018 email, Zuckerberg expressed concerns about the growing scrutiny on big tech companies. He suggested that spinning Instagram out of Meta might be the only way to meet the company’s goals in a rapidly evolving market. He also mentioned that Meta could be forced to separate Instagram and WhatsApp in the future if regulatory pressure intensified.

“There is a non-trivial chance that we could be forced to spin Instagram out and perhaps WhatsApp in the next five to 10 years,” Zuckerberg wrote.

This revelation came during the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) trial, where Meta faces allegations of illegally monopolizing the social media market by acquiring competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp. The trial could potentially force Meta to break off these two platforms, which it bought over a decade ago for $1 billion and $22 billion, respectively.

Zuckerberg, the first witness in the trial, spent more than seven hours on the stand over two days. The emails in question were related to discussions on whether Meta should buy Instagram and what impact the acquisition would have on competition in the market.

Throughout his testimony, Zuckerberg faced tough questioning about Meta’s acquisition of Instagram. Daniel Matheson, the attorney leading the case for the FTC, pointed out that Zuckerberg had referred to Instagram as a “rapidly growing, threatening network.” Matheson also raised the point that Zuckerberg’s goal in acquiring Instagram might have been to neutralize a competitor.

However, Zuckerberg defended his decision, saying that Meta wasn’t just trying to squash competition. Instead, he explained that Facebook was in the process of building its own mobile camera app, but Instagram was already excelling in that area.

“I wanted to buy them because they were better at it,” Zuckerberg said, rejecting the idea that the purchase was solely about eliminating a rival.

Matheson brought up emails written by Zuckerberg and his associates dating back to the time before and after Instagram’s acquisition. One email from 2012 mentioned that Instagram and another startup, Path, were developing networks that could be “very disruptive” to Facebook’s business. Zuckerberg explained that the email was part of a larger conversation about whether to buy companies to accelerate Facebook’s growth.

Despite acknowledging the contents of these documents, Zuckerberg downplayed their significance, suggesting that they didn’t fully capture the broader strategic reasons behind Meta’s purchases.

Later in the day, Meta’s attorney, Mark Hansen, began his questioning, emphasizing that Meta’s services are free and that the company faces significant competition. He argued that charging for services like Facebook would drive users away, as alternatives are readily available.

Zuckerberg echoed this point, asserting that Meta operates in a highly competitive environment. The trial is one of the first major tests of the FTC’s power under President Donald Trump to challenge the dominance of big tech companies.

The FTC’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleges that Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were part of a strategy to crush competition and establish a monopoly in the social media market. The FTC has a narrow view of Meta’s competitors, focusing on platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp, while excluding major rivals like TikTok, YouTube, and Apple’s messaging service.

As the case moves forward, it could have significant consequences for the future of Meta and the broader tech industry. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing the case, already denied Meta’s request for summary judgment, meaning the case will go to trial. The outcome could shape the future of tech acquisitions and antitrust regulations for years to come.

Source: AP News – Meta CEO Zuckerberg considered spinning off Instagram in 2018 over antitrust worries, email says

The post Zuckerberg Considered Spinning Off Instagram Over Antitrust Concerns appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Google’s Response

Google has dismissed the allegations, stating that the complaint overlooks the intense competition in the digital advertising market. Dan Taylor, Google’s Vice President of Global Ads, defended the company’s practices:
“Our advertising tools help websites and apps fund their content while enabling businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers.”

Google added that advertisers and publishers have plenty of alternatives and expressed confidence in presenting its case in court.

Investigation Findings

The Competition Bureau launched its investigation in 2020 to assess whether Google’s practices harmed competition in the online advertising market. This year, the probe expanded to include Google’s advertising technology services.

The Bureau found that Google dominates the Canadian ad tech market and has allegedly abused its position to maintain and strengthen its market power. According to the Bureau, these actions have hindered competition, stifling innovation and choice for advertisers and publishers.

Parallels with U.S. and EU Cases

The case comes as Google faces similar legal challenges globally. In the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has accused Google of monopolizing markets for publisher ad servers and advertiser ad networks.

Google has pushed back against the DOJ’s claims, arguing that the online advertising industry remains competitive and that its business decisions are lawful. The company also criticized the U.S. government for focusing on a narrow segment of the market. Closing arguments in the U.S. case were presented earlier this week.

In Europe, Google offered to sell its ad exchange earlier this year to address antitrust concerns from the European Union. However, publishers in the EU rejected the offer, deeming it inadequate, as reported by Reuters in September.

What’s Next?

The lawsuit filed by Canada’s Competition Bureau aims to curtail Google’s influence in the online advertising market and promote a fairer playing field. If successful, the case could lead to significant changes in how Google operates its ad technology in Canada. It also signals increasing scrutiny of big tech companies worldwide as governments seek to address concerns over market dominance and competition.

Source

Top picture credit: REUTERS/Steve Marcus/File Photo

The post Canada Takes Google to Court Over Online Advertising Practices appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a 23-page document filed on Wednesday, the Justice Department proposed that Google sell its leading Chrome web browser and restrict its Android operating system to prevent it from unfairly promoting its search engine. The recommended breakup and changes come in the wake of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in August, which deemed Google a monopolist.

The push for these drastic measures highlights the seriousness with which the Biden administration’s regulators are treating the issue. However, the case could face changes under the next administration, with President-elect Donald Trump potentially appointing officials who may be less aggressive in their approach. Court hearings for Google’s penalty are set to begin in April, with Judge Mehta aiming to make a final ruling before Labor Day.

If Mehta agrees to the Justice Department’s recommendations, Google is almost certain to appeal, which would likely delay the case further. The proposed penalties include a spinoff of Google’s Chrome browser and further restrictions on its Android software, as well as a ban on deals that make Google’s search engine the default on Apple’s iPhones and other devices.

Additionally, regulators are calling for Google to share data it collects from users’ search queries with competitors, allowing them a better chance to compete. These moves could disrupt Google’s $300 billion business, which has contributed significantly to the profits of its parent company, Alphabet Inc.

The Justice Department argues that Google’s actions have created an unfair advantage that has skewed the playing field, with the company benefiting from illegal gains. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages,” the department said in its filing.

There’s still a possibility that the Justice Department could scale back its efforts, particularly if Trump replaces Jonathan Kanter, who was appointed by Biden to head the antitrust division. Although the case was originally filed during Trump’s first term, Kanter has overseen the trial and led the charge against Big Tech, including cases against companies like Apple. Trump has expressed concerns that breaking up Google could harm the company, but he has not offered an alternative plan.

The recent filing marks the Justice Department’s final chance to propose measures needed to restore competition in the search industry. It follows an earlier outline of potential penalties and has raised questions about whether the proposed breakup extends beyond the scope of the original trial and Mehta’s ruling.

One key issue addressed in Mehta’s decision was Google’s multibillion-dollar deals to keep its search engine as the default option on major platforms, like Apple’s iPhone. The Justice Department has proposed measures to stop these deals, which Google spends more than $26 billion annually to maintain.

However, it remains uncertain whether Judge Mehta will accept the idea of separating Chrome from Google or unbundling Android from the company’s other services. Some experts have compared this case to Microsoft’s antitrust case from 25 years ago, in which a court initially ordered a breakup of the company for using its Windows operating system to suppress competition. However, that decision was overturned on appeal, and experts believe that precedent could influence Mehta’s approach to the Google case.

Source

The post Justice Department Moves to Break Up Google, Calls for Sale of Chrome appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.