A month after losing a landmark antitrust case, Google will reportedly face another antitrust trial that targets its digital advertising business.
\nIn a trial set to begin Monday (Sept. 9) in Alexandria, Virginia, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of states allege that Google keeps competitors out of advertising technology markets and harms news publishers, Reuters reported Wednesday (Sept. 4).
\nIf the plaintiffs win this lawsuit, they could ask the judge to order a breakup of Google, according to the report.
\nGoogle has denied the plaintiffs\u2019 claims, saying that it doesn\u2019t have to share its technology with rivals and that its products are interoperable with those of its competitors, according to the report.
\nThe tech giant added that the plaintiffs\u2019 narrow focus on website ads ignores the competition it faces in the growing advertising categories of social media, streaming TV and apps, per the report.
\nThe DOJ and eight states filed the suit in January 2023, saying Google has illegally seized control of the online ad sector and that the solution is for a court to order the breakup of the digital search giant.
\n\u201cHaving inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,\u201d the DOJ said in the suit.
\nGoogle responded to the suit by saying the government was \u201cdoubling down on a flawed\u201d argument that would hurt small businesses and drive up advertising fees.
\n\u201cToday\u2019s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector,\u201d a Google spokesperson said at the time in a statement issued to PYMNTS.
\nIn another antitrust case that was decided Aug. 5, a judge concluded that Google\u2019s business practices violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act, by maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the search and search advertising markets.
\nThe company plans to appeal that ruling, Kent Walker, president, global affairs at Google, said at the time in a statement emailed to PYMNTS.
\n\u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available,\u201d Walker said.
\nThe post Antitrust Trial Targeting Google\u2019s Digital Ad Business to Begin Monday appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "A month after losing a landmark antitrust case, Google will reportedly face another antitrust trial that targets its digital advertising business.\nIn a trial set to begin Monday (Sept. 9) in Alexandria, Virginia, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of states allege that Google keeps competitors out of advertising technology markets and harms news publishers, Reuters reported Wednesday (Sept. 4).\nIf the plaintiffs win this lawsuit, they could ask the judge to order a breakup of Google, according to the report.\nGoogle has denied the plaintiffs\u2019 claims, saying that it doesn\u2019t have to share its technology with rivals and that its products are interoperable with those of its competitors, according to the report.\nThe tech giant added that the plaintiffs\u2019 narrow focus on website ads ignores the competition it faces in the growing advertising categories of social media, streaming TV and apps, per the report.\nThe DOJ and eight states filed the suit in January 2023, saying Google has illegally seized control of the online ad sector and that the solution is for a court to order the breakup of the digital search giant.\n\u201cHaving inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,\u201d the DOJ said in the suit.\nGoogle responded to the suit by saying the government was \u201cdoubling down on a flawed\u201d argument that would hurt small businesses and drive up advertising fees.\n\u201cToday\u2019s lawsuit from the DOJ attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector,\u201d a Google spokesperson said at the time in a statement issued to PYMNTS.\nIn another antitrust case that was decided Aug. 5, a judge concluded that Google\u2019s business practices violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act, by maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the search and search advertising markets.\nThe company plans to appeal that ruling, Kent Walker, president, global affairs at Google, said at the time in a statement emailed to PYMNTS.\n\u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available,\u201d Walker said.\nThe post Antitrust Trial Targeting Google\u2019s Digital Ad Business to Begin Monday appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-09-04T12:25:20-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-09-04T12:25:20-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Google.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "Department of Justice", "digital advertising", "Google", "legal", "News", "online advertising", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "Technology", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2080646", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/report-doj-sends-tech-companies-subpoenas-in-nvidia-antitrust-probe/", "title": "Report: DOJ Sends Tech Companies Subpoenas in Nvidia Antitrust Probe", "content_html": "The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reportedly escalated its antitrust investigation of Nvidia.
\nAfter previously sending questionnaires to the chipmaker and other tech companies, the DOJ is now sending legally binding requests for information, Bloomberg reported Tuesday (Sept. 3), citing unnamed sources.
\nThis move signals that the government has moved a step closer to making a formal complaint against Nvidia, according to the report.
\nThe investigation focuses on concerns that Nvidia\u2019s acquisition of Run:AI will make it difficult for customers to switch to other chip suppliers and that Nvidia uses supply and pricing to penalize customers that don\u2019t only buy its chips, per the release.
\nWhen asked about the probe by Bloomberg, the company said: \u201cNvidia wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, who can choose whatever solution is best for them.\u201d
\nIt was reported Aug. 2 that the DOJ was looking into whether Nvidia has abused its dominant position in the market for artificial intelligence (AI) chips by charging higher prices if customers also buy chips from its rivals and whether the company pressures buyers of its chips to also buy other products like cables.
\nAn Nvidia spokesperson said at the time that the company is happy to provide information to regulators.
\n\u201cWe compete based on decades of investment and innovation, scrupulously adhering to all laws, making Nvidia openly available in every cloud and on-prem for every enterprise, and ensuring that customers can choose whatever solution is best for them,\u201d the spokesperson said.
\nNvidia has been facing increasing regulatory scrutiny. The company has disclosed requests for information from regulators in the United States, South Korea, the European Union, the United Kingdom and China.
\nThese requests relate to various aspects of its AI business, including GPU sales, supply allocation and partnerships with companies developing foundation models.
\nNvidia has earned a spot among the world\u2019s most valuable companies, driven by the wave of investor interest in AI. The company\u2019s gains have been driven by its status as the dominant maker of chips that help power data centers that run the computing tasks needed by AI applications.
\nThe post Report: DOJ Sends Tech Companies Subpoenas in Nvidia Antitrust Probe appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reportedly escalated its antitrust investigation of Nvidia.\nAfter previously sending questionnaires to the chipmaker and other tech companies, the DOJ is now sending legally binding requests for information, Bloomberg reported Tuesday (Sept. 3), citing unnamed sources.\nThis move signals that the government has moved a step closer to making a formal complaint against Nvidia, according to the report.\nThe investigation focuses on concerns that Nvidia\u2019s acquisition of Run:AI will make it difficult for customers to switch to other chip suppliers and that Nvidia uses supply and pricing to penalize customers that don\u2019t only buy its chips, per the release.\nWhen asked about the probe by Bloomberg, the company said: \u201cNvidia wins on merit, as reflected in our benchmark results and value to customers, who can choose whatever solution is best for them.\u201d\nIt was reported Aug. 2 that the DOJ was looking into whether Nvidia has abused its dominant position in the market for artificial intelligence (AI) chips by charging higher prices if customers also buy chips from its rivals and whether the company pressures buyers of its chips to also buy other products like cables.\nAn Nvidia spokesperson said at the time that the company is happy to provide information to regulators.\n\u201cWe compete based on decades of investment and innovation, scrupulously adhering to all laws, making Nvidia openly available in every cloud and on-prem for every enterprise, and ensuring that customers can choose whatever solution is best for them,\u201d the spokesperson said.\nNvidia has been facing increasing regulatory scrutiny. The company has disclosed requests for information from regulators in the United States, South Korea, the European Union, the United Kingdom and China.\nThese requests relate to various aspects of its AI business, including GPU sales, supply allocation and partnerships with companies developing foundation models.\nNvidia has earned a spot among the world\u2019s most valuable companies, driven by the wave of investor interest in AI. The company\u2019s gains have been driven by its status as the dominant maker of chips that help power data centers that run the computing tasks needed by AI applications.\nThe post Report: DOJ Sends Tech Companies Subpoenas in Nvidia Antitrust Probe appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-09-03T21:29:50-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-09-03T21:29:50-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Nvidia-DOJ-antitrust.jpg", "tags": [ "AI", "ANTITRUST", "artificial intelligence", "Department of Justice", "DoJ", "News", "NVIDIA", "PYMNTS News", "Run:ai", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2051215", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/judge-says-plaintiffs-can-file-amended-antitrust-lawsuit-against-google/", "title": "Judge Says Plaintiffs Can File Amended Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google", "content_html": "A federal judge in California is giving plaintiffs a chance to file an amended lawsuit after dismissing their antitrust lawsuit against Google.
\nThe lawsuit accuses the tech giant of unlawfully dominating web search on smartphones, Reuters reported Monday (Aug. 12).
\nIn a ruling delivered Friday (Aug. 9), U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence showing harm from Google\u2019s dominance of the market, according to the report.
\nLin added that the plaintiffs could file an amended suit by Sept. 9, pointing to a Washington, D.C., court\u2019s ruling in a separate lawsuit that was announced Aug. 5 and found that Google had created an illegal monopoly over search engines, the report said.
\nThe case before the California court was filed in 2022 and alleged that Google had unlawfully become the exclusive preloaded default search engine on Apple devices, per the report.
\nGoogle has denied the allegations in both cases, per the report.
\nThe Aug. 5 ruling by a Washington, D.C., court concluded that Google\u2019s business practices violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act, by maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the search and search advertising markets.
\nIt centered on the company\u2019s extensive and complex business practices that the plaintiffs said stifled competition and innovation. The judge\u2019s ruling in that case outlined how Google\u2019s practices created barriers to entry for competitors, thereby maintaining what the judge called its monopolistic status.
\nGoogle vowed to appeal the ruling. Kent Walker, president, global affairs at Google, said in a statement emailed to PYMNTS on Aug. 5: \u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available.\u201d
\nThe Aug. 5 ruling may also impact Apple, which has a search engine agreement with Google and may have billions of dollars and several percentage points of operating margin (and profits) hanging in the balance during the continuing court battle, PYMNTS reported Tuesday (Aug. 6).
\nU.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said in the ruling that default search agreements like the Apple/Google tie-up deny Google\u2019s competitors access to search queries and user data needed to improve their products and ad platforms.
\nThe post Judge Says Plaintiffs Can File Amended Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "A federal judge in California is giving plaintiffs a chance to file an amended lawsuit after dismissing their antitrust lawsuit against Google.\nThe lawsuit accuses the tech giant of unlawfully dominating web search on smartphones, Reuters reported Monday (Aug. 12).\nIn a ruling delivered Friday (Aug. 9), U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence showing harm from Google\u2019s dominance of the market, according to the report.\nLin added that the plaintiffs could file an amended suit by Sept. 9, pointing to a Washington, D.C., court\u2019s ruling in a separate lawsuit that was announced Aug. 5 and found that Google had created an illegal monopoly over search engines, the report said.\nThe case before the California court was filed in 2022 and alleged that Google had unlawfully become the exclusive preloaded default search engine on Apple devices, per the report.\nGoogle has denied the allegations in both cases, per the report.\nThe Aug. 5 ruling by a Washington, D.C., court concluded that Google\u2019s business practices violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act, by maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the search and search advertising markets.\nIt centered on the company\u2019s extensive and complex business practices that the plaintiffs said stifled competition and innovation. The judge\u2019s ruling in that case outlined how Google\u2019s practices created barriers to entry for competitors, thereby maintaining what the judge called its monopolistic status.\nGoogle vowed to appeal the ruling. Kent Walker, president, global affairs at Google, said in a statement emailed to PYMNTS on Aug. 5: \u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available.\u201d\nThe Aug. 5 ruling may also impact Apple, which has a search engine agreement with Google and may have billions of dollars and several percentage points of operating margin (and profits) hanging in the balance during the continuing court battle, PYMNTS reported Tuesday (Aug. 6).\nU.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said in the ruling that default search agreements like the Apple/Google tie-up deny Google\u2019s competitors access to search queries and user data needed to improve their products and ad platforms.\nThe post Judge Says Plaintiffs Can File Amended Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-08-12T14:55:05-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-08-12T14:55:05-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Google-antitrust-lawsuit.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "Google", "Lawsuits", "News", "PYMNTS News", "search engines", "Smartphones", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2049271", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/united-kingdom-cma-launches-merger-inquiry-amazon-partnership-with-anthropic/", "title": "UK\u2019s CMA Launches Merger Inquiry Into Amazon Partnership With Anthropic", "content_html": "Amazon\u2019s partnership with artificial intelligence company Anthropic is being investigated by the United Kingdom\u2019s competition and markets regulator.
\nThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a merger inquiry after collecting comments in April and May on whether the partnership could result in a lessening of competition in the market, according to a Thursday (Aug. 8) update.
\nThe CMA said in a commencement notice that it has sufficient information to begin an investigation to decide whether it should advance to a \u201cphase 2 investigation.\u201d
\nThe regulator will announce that decision by Oct. 4, according to the notice.
\nAn Amazon spokesperson said in a statement provided to PYMNTS that the company is \u201cdisappointed\u201d that the CMA did not end its probe, adding that the company\u2019s collaboration with Anthropic does not raise competition concerns and that Anthropic is working to become a viable alternative in a generative AI market that is currently dominated by one company.
\n\u201cBy investing in Anthropic, Amazon, along with other companies, is helping Anthropic expand choice and competition in this important technology,\u201d the statement said.
\nAnthropic said in a statement provided to PYMNTS that Amazon does not have a seat on the company\u2019s board and that Anthropic will cooperate with the CMA to provide it with a \u201ccomprehensive understanding\u201d of the investment and the collaboration.
\n\u201cWe are an independent company,\u201d the Anthropic statement said. \u201cOur strategic partnerships and investor relationships do not diminish our corporate governance independence or our freedom to partner with others.\u201d
\nAmazon said in March that it made a total investment of $4 billion in Anthropic, with an initial investment of $1.25 billion in September 2023 followed by an additional $2.75 billion investment in March.
\nThe CMA asked for input from stakeholders in April about whether this investment and other Big Tech partnerships with AI companies should be classified as mergers.
\nJoel Bamford, executive director of mergers at CMA, said in an April press release that \u201cfair and effective competition in Foundation Model markets is critical to making sure the full benefits of this transformation are realized by people and businesses in the U.K., as well as our wider economy where technology has a huge role to play in growth and productivity.\u201d
\nThe post UK\u2019s CMA Launches Merger Inquiry Into Amazon Partnership With Anthropic appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Amazon\u2019s partnership with artificial intelligence company Anthropic is being investigated by the United Kingdom\u2019s competition and markets regulator.\nThe Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a merger inquiry after collecting comments in April and May on whether the partnership could result in a lessening of competition in the market, according to a Thursday (Aug. 8) update.\nThe CMA said in a commencement notice that it has sufficient information to begin an investigation to decide whether it should advance to a \u201cphase 2 investigation.\u201d\nThe regulator will announce that decision by Oct. 4, according to the notice.\nAn Amazon spokesperson said in a statement provided to PYMNTS that the company is \u201cdisappointed\u201d that the CMA did not end its probe, adding that the company\u2019s collaboration with Anthropic does not raise competition concerns and that Anthropic is working to become a viable alternative in a generative AI market that is currently dominated by one company.\n\u201cBy investing in Anthropic, Amazon, along with other companies, is helping Anthropic expand choice and competition in this important technology,\u201d the statement said.\nAnthropic said in a statement provided to PYMNTS that Amazon does not have a seat on the company\u2019s board and that Anthropic will cooperate with the CMA to provide it with a \u201ccomprehensive understanding\u201d of the investment and the collaboration.\n\u201cWe are an independent company,\u201d the Anthropic statement said. \u201cOur strategic partnerships and investor relationships do not diminish our corporate governance independence or our freedom to partner with others.\u201d\nAmazon said in March that it made a total investment of $4 billion in Anthropic, with an initial investment of $1.25 billion in September 2023 followed by an additional $2.75 billion investment in March.\nThe CMA asked for input from stakeholders in April about whether this investment and other Big Tech partnerships with AI companies should be classified as mergers.\nJoel Bamford, executive director of mergers at CMA, said in an April press release that \u201cfair and effective competition in Foundation Model markets is critical to making sure the full benefits of this transformation are realized by people and businesses in the U.K., as well as our wider economy where technology has a huge role to play in growth and productivity.\u201d\nThe post UK\u2019s CMA Launches Merger Inquiry Into Amazon Partnership With Anthropic appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-08-08T10:46:45-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-08-08T10:46:45-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Competition-and-Markets-Authority-CMA.jpg", "tags": [ "Amazon", "Anthropic", "ANTITRUST", "artificial intelligence", "Big Tech", "cma", "Competition and Markets Authority", "GenAI", "Innovation", "international", "News", "partnerships", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "Technology", "uk", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2024141", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/google-vows-to-appeal-antitrust-ruling-as-tech-industry-speculates-on-implications/", "title": "Google Vows to Appeal Antitrust Ruling as Tech Industry Speculates on Implications", "content_html": "Day one of the post-Google antitrust ruling era kicked off with a reaction from the defendant in the case and a slew of \u201cwhat ifs\u201d about the implications of the decision for the connected economy.
\n\u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available,\u201d said Google global affairs President Kent Walker in a statement sent to PYMNTS.
\n\u201cWe appreciate the Court\u2019s finding that Google is \u2018the industry\u2019s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,\u2019 that Google \u2018has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,\u2019 \u2018has continued to innovate in search\u2019 and that \u2018Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google\u2019s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google\u2019s to be superior.\u2019 Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused\u00a0on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.\u201d
\nWalker\u2019s comments address some of the findings issued Monday (Aug. 5) by U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, who found that Google illegally maintained monopolies in the markets for general search services and general search text advertising through its exclusive distribution agreements.
\nAfter a nine-week bench trial that concluded in November 2023, Mehta ruled that Google\u2019s distribution agreements with mobile device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and web browser developers foreclosed rivals from key distribution channels and allowed Google to unlawfully maintain its monopoly power. Mehta\u2019s ruling did not recommend remedies for what he called Google\u2019s monopolistic practices, and the reality is that the appeal could stretch deep into 2025 and maybe beyond.
\nAll of which left industry pundits and legal analysts to discuss the implications of the decision on search and the extent of the partnerships that drive the connected economy. For example, Apple Magazine speculated that Apple might develop its own search engine.
\n\u201cGoogle may need to explore new avenues to maintain its search dominance, while Apple might consider developing its own search capabilities or forging partnerships with alternative providers,\u201d its editors wrote.
\n\u201cThe decision also highlights the ongoing need for regulatory vigilance in the fast-paced tech industry. As digital ecosystems become increasingly integral to daily life, ensuring fair competition and preventing monopolistic practices becomes ever more crucial. While Google is expected to appeal the decision, potentially extending the legal battle, the mere prospect of change is already stirring innovation in the search engine market. Competitors are likely gearing up to seize this opportunity, potentially leading to a more diverse and competitive digital landscape.\u201d
\nOne of the most complete and informed interpretations came from the American Action Forum. Jeffrey Westling, the group\u2019s director of technology and innovations policy, argued that Google will have a strong case upon appeal.
\nWestling said that while the decision is a significant win for the Department of Justice, it demonstrates that current antitrust laws are sufficient to address anticompetitive behavior in online markets. He contended that the court\u2019s opinion follows established legal principles and that Congress need not create new legislation targeting Big Tech. He suggested that the case shows how antitrust law can be applied to online marketplaces and that size alone is not illegal if companies benefit consumers and competition.
\n\u201cThe court\u2019s decision is a major win for the DOJ in its antitrust case against Google,\u201d Westling wrote. \u201cWhat\u2019s more, the opinion highlights how current law is more than capable of addressing harm in online markets. While Google will appeal the ruling \u2014 it has some strong arguments with which to do so \u2014 Congress should allow the courts to continue examining specific conduct and evaluating whether it harms competition rather than crafting unnecessary legislation to prohibit a wide range of conduct solely due to fears that firms are too large.\u201d
\nThe post Google Vows to Appeal Antitrust Ruling as Tech Industry Speculates on Implications appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Day one of the post-Google antitrust ruling era kicked off with a reaction from the defendant in the case and a slew of \u201cwhat ifs\u201d about the implications of the decision for the connected economy. \n\u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available,\u201d said Google global affairs President Kent Walker in a statement sent to PYMNTS. \n\u201cWe appreciate the Court\u2019s finding that Google is \u2018the industry\u2019s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,\u2019 that Google \u2018has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,\u2019 \u2018has continued to innovate in search\u2019 and that \u2018Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google\u2019s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google\u2019s to be superior.\u2019 Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused\u00a0on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.\u201d \nWalker\u2019s comments address some of the findings issued Monday (Aug. 5) by U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta, who found that Google illegally maintained monopolies in the markets for general search services and general search text advertising through its exclusive distribution agreements. \nAfter a nine-week bench trial that concluded in November 2023, Mehta ruled that Google\u2019s distribution agreements with mobile device manufacturers, wireless carriers, and web browser developers foreclosed rivals from key distribution channels and allowed Google to unlawfully maintain its monopoly power. Mehta\u2019s ruling did not recommend remedies for what he called Google\u2019s monopolistic practices, and the reality is that the appeal could stretch deep into 2025 and maybe beyond. \nAll of which left industry pundits and legal analysts to discuss the implications of the decision on search and the extent of the partnerships that drive the connected economy. For example, Apple Magazine speculated that Apple might develop its own search engine. \n\u201cGoogle may need to explore new avenues to maintain its search dominance, while Apple might consider developing its own search capabilities or forging partnerships with alternative providers,\u201d its editors wrote.\n\u201cThe decision also highlights the ongoing need for regulatory vigilance in the fast-paced tech industry. As digital ecosystems become increasingly integral to daily life, ensuring fair competition and preventing monopolistic practices becomes ever more crucial. While Google is expected to appeal the decision, potentially extending the legal battle, the mere prospect of change is already stirring innovation in the search engine market. Competitors are likely gearing up to seize this opportunity, potentially leading to a more diverse and competitive digital landscape.\u201d\nOne of the most complete and informed interpretations came from the American Action Forum. Jeffrey Westling, the group\u2019s director of technology and innovations policy, argued that Google will have a strong case upon appeal. \nWestling said that while the decision is a significant win for the Department of Justice, it demonstrates that current antitrust laws are sufficient to address anticompetitive behavior in online markets. He contended that the court\u2019s opinion follows established legal principles and that Congress need not create new legislation targeting Big Tech. He suggested that the case shows how antitrust law can be applied to online marketplaces and that size alone is not illegal if companies benefit consumers and competition. \n\u201cThe court\u2019s decision is a major win for the DOJ in its antitrust case against Google,\u201d Westling wrote. \u201cWhat\u2019s more, the opinion highlights how current law is more than capable of addressing harm in online markets. While Google will appeal the ruling \u2014 it has some strong arguments with which to do so \u2014 Congress should allow the courts to continue examining specific conduct and evaluating whether it harms competition rather than crafting unnecessary legislation to prohibit a wide range of conduct solely due to fears that firms are too large.\u201d \nThe post Google Vows to Appeal Antitrust Ruling as Tech Industry Speculates on Implications appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-08-06T18:11:41-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-08-06T18:11:41-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Google-ruling.jpg", "tags": [ "American Action Forum. Jeffrey Westling", "Amit P. Mehta", "ANTITRUST", "Apple", "Google", "Kent Walker", "News", "PYMNTS News", "search" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2023056", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/google-ruling-may-blunt-apple-services-revenue-ecosystem-growth/", "title": "Google Ruling May Blunt Apple\u2019s Services Revenue and Ecosystem Growth", "content_html": "For years, tech juggernaut Apple has been building a services-focused ecosystem designed to offset bumpy, lumpy hardware sales and bring higher-margin dollars to its revenue streams.
\nTake, for example, its search capabilities. Google is the preset default search engine on Apple\u2019s Safari browser via a longstanding agreement.
\nApple has been posting double-digit growth in services through the past several quarters, but this momentum may be blunted by a landmark U.S. District Court ruling Monday (Aug. 5) that Google has acted as a monopolist, and by extension, its search agreement with Apple is anti-competitive.
\nBillions of dollars and several percentage points of Apple\u2019s operating margin (and profits) may hang in the balance.
\nAmong the anti-competitive findings in the opinion, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said default search agreements (the Apple/Google tie-up is one example here) deny Google\u2019s competitors access to search queries and user data needed to improve their products and ad platforms.
\n\u201cMost users access a general search engine through a browser (like Apple\u2019s Safari) or a search widget that comes preloaded on a mobile device,\u201d Mehta wrote in the ruling. \u201cThose search access points are preset with a \u2018default\u2019 search engine. The default is extremely valuable real estate.\u201d
\nThe value of that metaphorical real estate runs both ways. Apple and Google entered into their current Internet Services Agreement in 2016. The ruling detailed that, per the deal, Google pays Apple a share of its search ads revenue in exchange for Apple preloading Google as the \u201cexclusive, out-of-the-box default\u201d search engine. The agreement is in place through 2026, and there\u2019s an option to extend the joint efforts until 2031, via mutual agreement.
\nThe agreement also \u201crequires both parties to cooperate to defend the agreement, including in response to regulatory actions.\u201d
\nFor Apple, the impact of the agreement, and the dependence on Google, is sizable.
\nMehta\u2019s ruling detailed that \u201cbetween Siri, Spotlight and Safari, Apple gets about 10 billion user queries per week. Roughly 80% of those queries are entered into Safari; Siri and Spotlight thus make up a minority of queries.\u201d
\nAs the default engine on Safari across all Apple devices, Google is an automatic responder to search queries unless users actively select different third-party services.
\n\u201cIn 2022, Google\u2019s revenue share payment to Apple was an estimated $20 billion (worldwide queries),\u201d the ruling said. \u201cThis is nearly double the payment made in 2020, which was then equivalent to 17.5% of Apple’s operating profit.\u201d
\nAccording to Apple\u2019s latest earnings report, the services segment accounted for 28% of the company\u2019s $85.8 billion in net sales in the fiscal third quarter, growing by 14% year on year. The services segment carries gross margins of about 73% versus hardware margins of about 35%. The company offers only qualitative detail on its services-related revenues during conference calls (and in its filings).
\nThe company\u2019s latest annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that for the year that ended last September, the total services segment logged $85.2 billion in sales. If Apple loses $20 billion from its deal with Google, that would equal somewhere near a quarter of its services sales ($20 billion through the service agreement on $86 billion in services revenues), with gross margins that are rather high.
\nPYMNTS has reached out to Apple for comment.
\nThe exact impact of curtailing or shuttering the Internet Services Agreement may be hard to pin down because the ruling\u2019s impact and regulatory actions have yet to be known. But the old Wall Street saying is that it\u2019s better to be directionally right than precisely wrong. In this case, the direction seems that there may be at least some near-term headwinds to a lucrative revenue stream that has been helping Apple move beyond hardware.
\nThe post Google Ruling May Blunt Apple\u2019s Services Revenue and Ecosystem Growth appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "For years, tech juggernaut Apple has been building a services-focused ecosystem designed to offset bumpy, lumpy hardware sales and bring higher-margin dollars to its revenue streams.\nTake, for example, its search capabilities. Google is the preset default search engine on Apple\u2019s Safari browser via a longstanding agreement.\nApple has been posting double-digit growth in services through the past several quarters, but this momentum may be blunted by a landmark U.S. District Court ruling Monday (Aug. 5) that Google has acted as a monopolist, and by extension, its search agreement with Apple is anti-competitive.\nBillions of dollars and several percentage points of Apple\u2019s operating margin (and profits) may hang in the balance.\nAmong the anti-competitive findings in the opinion, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said default search agreements (the Apple/Google tie-up is one example here) deny Google\u2019s competitors access to search queries and user data needed to improve their products and ad platforms.\n\u201cMost users access a general search engine through a browser (like Apple\u2019s Safari) or a search widget that comes preloaded on a mobile device,\u201d Mehta wrote in the ruling. \u201cThose search access points are preset with a \u2018default\u2019 search engine. The default is extremely valuable real estate.\u201d\nThe value of that metaphorical real estate runs both ways. Apple and Google entered into their current Internet Services Agreement in 2016. The ruling detailed that, per the deal, Google pays Apple a share of its search ads revenue in exchange for Apple preloading Google as the \u201cexclusive, out-of-the-box default\u201d search engine. The agreement is in place through 2026, and there\u2019s an option to extend the joint efforts until 2031, via mutual agreement.\nThe agreement also \u201crequires both parties to cooperate to defend the agreement, including in response to regulatory actions.\u201d\nFor Apple, the impact of the agreement, and the dependence on Google, is sizable.\nMehta\u2019s ruling detailed that \u201cbetween Siri, Spotlight and Safari, Apple gets about 10 billion user queries per week. Roughly 80% of those queries are entered into Safari; Siri and Spotlight thus make up a minority of queries.\u201d\nAs the default engine on Safari across all Apple devices, Google is an automatic responder to search queries unless users actively select different third-party services.\nBoiling Down to Dollars and Cents\n\u201cIn 2022, Google\u2019s revenue share payment to Apple was an estimated $20 billion (worldwide queries),\u201d the ruling said. \u201cThis is nearly double the payment made in 2020, which was then equivalent to 17.5% of Apple’s operating profit.\u201d\nAccording to Apple\u2019s latest earnings report, the services segment accounted for 28% of the company\u2019s $85.8 billion in net sales in the fiscal third quarter, growing by 14% year on year. The services segment carries gross margins of about 73% versus hardware margins of about 35%. The company offers only qualitative detail on its services-related revenues during conference calls (and in its filings).\nThe company\u2019s latest annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) noted that for the year that ended last September, the total services segment logged $85.2 billion in sales. If Apple loses $20 billion from its deal with Google, that would equal somewhere near a quarter of its services sales ($20 billion through the service agreement on $86 billion in services revenues), with gross margins that are rather high.\nPYMNTS has reached out to Apple for comment.\nThe exact impact of curtailing or shuttering the Internet Services Agreement may be hard to pin down because the ruling\u2019s impact and regulatory actions have yet to be known. But the old Wall Street saying is that it\u2019s better to be directionally right than precisely wrong. In this case, the direction seems that there may be at least some near-term headwinds to a lucrative revenue stream that has been helping Apple move beyond hardware.\nThe post Google Ruling May Blunt Apple\u2019s Services Revenue and Ecosystem Growth appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-08-06T11:28:21-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-08-06T11:28:21-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Apple-Google.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "Apple", "Google", "Lawsuits", "legal", "News", "PYMNTS News", "Safari", "search", "Technology" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2022766", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/tech-industry-braces-for-fallout-from-google-antitrust-verdict/", "title": "Tech Industry Braces for Fallout From Google Antitrust Verdict", "content_html": "By now, you know that Google lost its landmark antitrust case, pending what is sure to be a dogfight of an appeal. In the balance, there are more antitrust cases in the tech sector involving Meta and Amazon, among others.
\nWith that in mind it\u2019s important to focus on the details in the judge\u2019s decision, which concludes that Google\u2019s business practices violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act, by maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the search and search advertising markets.
\nIn a statement emailed to PYMNTS, Kent Walker, Google’s President, Global Affairs, said the company plans to appeal:
\n\u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available. We appreciate the Court\u2019s finding that Google is \u201cthe industry\u2019s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users\u201d, that Google \u201chas long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices\u201d, \u201chas continued to innovate in search\u201d and that \u201cApple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google\u2019s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google\u2019s to be superior.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal.\u00a0\u00a0As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.\u201d
\nAccording to several legal opinions in the immediate aftermath of the decision, consumers will not be affected any time soon. However, before the decision, several legal firms played \u201cwhat if\u201d with the anticipated decision, including this speculation from the Lanier Law Firm \u2014 which had filed one of the many suits against Google \u2014 in January.
\n\u201cCasual web and smartphone users, for example, will see a wider variety of search engines available for use if Google loses in these antitrust lawsuits. Instead of being directed to Google by default, many more users will search the internet using privacy-focused search engines such as DuckDuckGo,\u201d the firm posted.
\n\u201cWhen booking travel, looking for hotels, or searching for activities on your next vacation, Google\u2019s loss in these antitrust cases would place vertical search websites higher in the search results. Instead of seeing services such as Google Flights or Google Hotels above the fold, you\u2019ll begin to see more companies like Tripadvisor, Yelp or Kayak.\u201d
\nThe case, formally known as United States of America et al. v. Google LLC, centered on Google\u2019s extensive and complex business practices that, according to the plaintiffs, stifled competition and innovation. The ruling, detailed in a comprehensive 286-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, outlines how Google\u2019s practices created barriers to entry for competitors, thereby maintaining what he called its monopolistic status.
\nThe decision marks a turning point in a nearly four-year legal battle between Google and U.S. antitrust enforcers. The Department of Justice, joined by 11 states, filed the original lawsuit in October 2020, alleging that Google used anticompetitive tactics to preserve its dominance in search and search advertising. A separate lawsuit filed by a coalition of state attorneys general was later consolidated with the federal case.
\nAfter a nine-week bench trial that concluded in November 2023, Mehta ruled that Google\u2019s distribution agreements with mobile device manufacturers, wireless carriers and web browser developers foreclosed rivals from key distribution channels and allowed Google to unlawfully maintain its monopoly power.
\nThe court defined two relevant antitrust markets in which Google was found to have monopoly power:
\n1. General search services: Mehta rejected Google\u2019s argument for a broader \u201cquery responses\u201d market that would have included specialized vertical providers like Amazon. Instead, he concluded that general search engines like Google and Bing constitute a distinct product market.
\n2. General search text advertising: The court found that text ads on general search engines are a separate market from other forms of online advertising, including product listing ads and display ads.
\nIn both markets, the court determined that Google possesses monopoly power based on its dominant market share and the existence of significant barriers to entry. The ruling notes that Google has held over 80% share of general search queries since 2009, reaching nearly 90% by 2020. In general search text advertising, Google\u2019s market share was found to be 88%.
\nAt the core of the case were Google\u2019s revenue-sharing agreements that make Google the preset default search engine on Apple\u2019s Safari browser, Mozilla\u2019s Firefox browser and on Android mobile devices. Mehta concluded these agreements are exclusive deals that hinder rivals from critical distribution channels.
\nThe court found the agreements produce three main anticompetitive effects:
\n1. Market foreclosure: The agreements were found to foreclose about 50% of general search queries and 45% of the general search text ad market from competitors.
\n2. Depriving rivals of scale: By locking up default search placements, the agreements deny Google\u2019s competitors access to search queries and user data needed to improve their products and ad platforms.
\n3. Reduced incentives to invest and innovate: The ruling states that Google\u2019s exclusive grip on key distribution channels has diminished incentives for both Google and its rivals to invest in search and search advertising capabilities.
\nMehta rejected Google\u2019s arguments that the agreements produce offsetting procompetitive benefits. He found that Google failed to show that deals enhance user experience, incentivize competition, or produce other benefits that justify their exclusionary effects.
\nNotably, the court dismissed Google\u2019s contention that it faces robust competition for queries from specialized vertical providers and social media platforms. Mehta determined these are largely complementary services rather than substitutes for general search.
\nA key finding in the ruling is that Google\u2019s monopoly power has enabled it to charge supracompetitive prices for search text ads without facing meaningful competitive constraints. The court cited evidence that Google has used various \u201cpricing knobs\u201d to steadily increase text ad prices over time, often seeing about 50% of price hikes stick long-term.
\nMehta found Google makes these pricing decisions without regard for competitors\u2019 pricing. He stated this ability to profitably raise prices substantially above competitive levels is clear evidence of monopoly power.
\nWhile finding Google liable for monopolization, the ruling does not specify remedies at this stage. Mehta indicated the court will address relief in subsequent proceedings.
\nThe Department of Justice had previously suggested potential remedies could include barring Google from entering into exclusionary agreements, unwinding existing deals, and potentially requiring divestitures. However, the exact scope of relief remains to be determined.
\nA few other notable elements of Mehta\u2019s decision:
\n\u2022 The court rejected a proposed market for \u201cgeneral search advertising\u201d that would have included both text ads and product listing ads. It found insufficient evidence to support this as a relevant antitrust market.
\n\u2022 Mehta dismissed claims related to Google\u2019s search advertising tool SA360, finding Google had no duty to provide feature parity between its own ad platform and Microsoft\u2019s.
\n\u2022 The ruling declined to impose sanctions on Google for failing to preserve certain employee chat messages, though it criticized the company\u2019s practices around document retention.
\n\u2022 While focused on competitive effects rather than intent, the judge expressed concern over \u201cthe lengths to which Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail for regulators and litigants.\u201d
\nGoogle is expected to appeal the decision, potentially setting up years of additional litigation. The company has maintained that its success stems from building a superior product rather than anticompetitive conduct.
\nThe post Tech Industry Braces for Fallout From Google Antitrust Verdict appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "By now, you know that Google lost its landmark antitrust case, pending what is sure to be a dogfight of an appeal. In the balance, there are more antitrust cases in the tech sector involving Meta and Amazon, among others. \nWith that in mind it\u2019s important to focus on the details in the judge\u2019s decision, which concludes that Google\u2019s business practices violated antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act, by maintaining and abusing its monopoly power in the search and search advertising markets.\nIn a statement emailed to PYMNTS, Kent Walker, Google’s President, Global Affairs, said the company plans to appeal:\n\u201cThis decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available. We appreciate the Court\u2019s finding that Google is \u201cthe industry\u2019s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users\u201d, that Google \u201chas long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices\u201d, \u201chas continued to innovate in search\u201d and that \u201cApple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google\u2019s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google\u2019s to be superior.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal.\u00a0\u00a0As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.\u201d\nAccording to several legal opinions in the immediate aftermath of the decision, consumers will not be affected any time soon. However, before the decision, several legal firms played \u201cwhat if\u201d with the anticipated decision, including this speculation from the Lanier Law Firm \u2014 which had filed one of the many suits against Google \u2014 in January. \n\u201cCasual web and smartphone users, for example, will see a wider variety of search engines available for use if Google loses in these antitrust lawsuits. Instead of being directed to Google by default, many more users will search the internet using privacy-focused search engines such as DuckDuckGo,\u201d the firm posted. \n\u201cWhen booking travel, looking for hotels, or searching for activities on your next vacation, Google\u2019s loss in these antitrust cases would place vertical search websites higher in the search results. Instead of seeing services such as Google Flights or Google Hotels above the fold, you\u2019ll begin to see more companies like Tripadvisor, Yelp or Kayak.\u201d\nThe case, formally known as United States of America et al. v. Google LLC, centered on Google\u2019s extensive and complex business practices that, according to the plaintiffs, stifled competition and innovation. The ruling, detailed in a comprehensive 286-page opinion by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, outlines how Google\u2019s practices created barriers to entry for competitors, thereby maintaining what he called its monopolistic status.\nThe decision marks a turning point in a nearly four-year legal battle between Google and U.S. antitrust enforcers. The Department of Justice, joined by 11 states, filed the original lawsuit in October 2020, alleging that Google used anticompetitive tactics to preserve its dominance in search and search advertising. A separate lawsuit filed by a coalition of state attorneys general was later consolidated with the federal case.\nAfter a nine-week bench trial that concluded in November 2023, Mehta ruled that Google\u2019s distribution agreements with mobile device manufacturers, wireless carriers and web browser developers foreclosed rivals from key distribution channels and allowed Google to unlawfully maintain its monopoly power.\nThe court defined two relevant antitrust markets in which Google was found to have monopoly power:\n1. General search services: Mehta rejected Google\u2019s argument for a broader \u201cquery responses\u201d market that would have included specialized vertical providers like Amazon. Instead, he concluded that general search engines like Google and Bing constitute a distinct product market.\n2. General search text advertising: The court found that text ads on general search engines are a separate market from other forms of online advertising, including product listing ads and display ads.\nIn both markets, the court determined that Google possesses monopoly power based on its dominant market share and the existence of significant barriers to entry. The ruling notes that Google has held over 80% share of general search queries since 2009, reaching nearly 90% by 2020. In general search text advertising, Google\u2019s market share was found to be 88%.\nAt the core of the case were Google\u2019s revenue-sharing agreements that make Google the preset default search engine on Apple\u2019s Safari browser, Mozilla\u2019s Firefox browser and on Android mobile devices. Mehta concluded these agreements are exclusive deals that hinder rivals from critical distribution channels.\nThe court found the agreements produce three main anticompetitive effects:\n1. Market foreclosure: The agreements were found to foreclose about 50% of general search queries and 45% of the general search text ad market from competitors.\n2. Depriving rivals of scale: By locking up default search placements, the agreements deny Google\u2019s competitors access to search queries and user data needed to improve their products and ad platforms.\n3. Reduced incentives to invest and innovate: The ruling states that Google\u2019s exclusive grip on key distribution channels has diminished incentives for both Google and its rivals to invest in search and search advertising capabilities.\nMehta rejected Google\u2019s arguments that the agreements produce offsetting procompetitive benefits. He found that Google failed to show that deals enhance user experience, incentivize competition, or produce other benefits that justify their exclusionary effects.\nNotably, the court dismissed Google\u2019s contention that it faces robust competition for queries from specialized vertical providers and social media platforms. Mehta determined these are largely complementary services rather than substitutes for general search.\nA key finding in the ruling is that Google\u2019s monopoly power has enabled it to charge supracompetitive prices for search text ads without facing meaningful competitive constraints. The court cited evidence that Google has used various \u201cpricing knobs\u201d to steadily increase text ad prices over time, often seeing about 50% of price hikes stick long-term.\nMehta found Google makes these pricing decisions without regard for competitors\u2019 pricing. He stated this ability to profitably raise prices substantially above competitive levels is clear evidence of monopoly power.\nRemedies to Be Determined\nWhile finding Google liable for monopolization, the ruling does not specify remedies at this stage. Mehta indicated the court will address relief in subsequent proceedings.\nThe Department of Justice had previously suggested potential remedies could include barring Google from entering into exclusionary agreements, unwinding existing deals, and potentially requiring divestitures. However, the exact scope of relief remains to be determined.\nA few other notable elements of Mehta\u2019s decision:\n\u2022 The court rejected a proposed market for \u201cgeneral search advertising\u201d that would have included both text ads and product listing ads. It found insufficient evidence to support this as a relevant antitrust market.\n\u2022 Mehta dismissed claims related to Google\u2019s search advertising tool SA360, finding Google had no duty to provide feature parity between its own ad platform and Microsoft\u2019s.\n\u2022 The ruling declined to impose sanctions on Google for failing to preserve certain employee chat messages, though it criticized the company\u2019s practices around document retention.\n\u2022 While focused on competitive effects rather than intent, the judge expressed concern over \u201cthe lengths to which Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail for regulators and litigants.\u201d\nGoogle is expected to appeal the decision, potentially setting up years of additional litigation. The company has maintained that its success stems from building a superior product rather than anticompetitive conduct.\nThe post Tech Industry Braces for Fallout From Google Antitrust Verdict appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-08-05T22:14:55-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-08-06T14:49:38-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Google-antitrust.jpg", "tags": [ "Amit Mehta", "ANTITRUST", "Featured News", "Google", "Lanier Law Firm", "News", "PYMNTS News", "search", "Search Advertising", "Sherman Act", "United States of America et al. v. Google LLC" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2021191", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/nvidia-faces-united-states-antitrust-probe-says-it-wins-on-merit/", "title": "Report: Nvidia Faces US Antitrust Probe, Says It \u2018Wins on Merit\u2019", "content_html": "Nvidia is reportedly the focus of a Justice Department antitrust investigation looking into whether the firm has abused its dominant position in the market for artificial intelligence chips.
\nThe Justice Department is investigating complaints that Nvidia charges higher prices if customers also buy chips from its rivals and that the company pressures buyers of its chips to also buy other products like cables, CNBC reported Friday (Aug. 2), citing a paywalled article by The Information.
\nA spokesperson for Nvidia said the company \u201cwins on merit\u201d and is happy to provide information to regulators, according to the report.
\n\u201cWe compete based on decades of investment and innovation, scrupulously adhering to all laws, making Nvidia openly available in every cloud and on-prem for every enterprise, and ensuring that customers can choose whatever solution is best for them,\u201d the spokesperson said, per the report.
\nSen. Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts is among those who have called on the Justice Department to investigate Nvidia, citing competition concerns, Reuters reported Friday.
\nIn addition, French antitrust enforcers are preparing to bring charges against Nvidia, targeting the company\u2019s bundling of its products, according to the report.
\nIt was reported in July that the surge in demand for Nvidia\u2019s chips used in AI and computer graphics has prompted regulatory scrutiny.
\nIn a regulatory filing last year, the company said that regulators from the European Union, the United States and China had requested information regarding its graphics cards.
\nIn a 10-Q filing, Nvidia said: \u201cOur position in markets relating to AI has led to increased interest in our business from regulators worldwide, including the European Union, the United States and China.\u201d
\nIt was reported in June that Nvidia has a market share of greater than 80% in AI chips.
\nNvidia CEO Jensen Huang said during a company shareholder meeting in June that Nvidia has taken several steps to maintain its dominant position in the market, including transforming from a gaming-focused company to a data center-focused one; partnering with computer makers and cloud providers to create new markets for its AI; and offering chips whose performance and operating costs make them a better value than others that may be cheaper to buy.
\nFor all PYMNTS AI coverage, subscribe to the daily AI Newsletter.
\nThe post Report: Nvidia Faces US Antitrust Probe, Says It \u2018Wins on Merit\u2019 appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Nvidia is reportedly the focus of a Justice Department antitrust investigation looking into whether the firm has abused its dominant position in the market for artificial intelligence chips.\nThe Justice Department is investigating complaints that Nvidia charges higher prices if customers also buy chips from its rivals and that the company pressures buyers of its chips to also buy other products like cables, CNBC reported Friday (Aug. 2), citing a paywalled article by The Information.\nA spokesperson for Nvidia said the company \u201cwins on merit\u201d and is happy to provide information to regulators, according to the report.\n\u201cWe compete based on decades of investment and innovation, scrupulously adhering to all laws, making Nvidia openly available in every cloud and on-prem for every enterprise, and ensuring that customers can choose whatever solution is best for them,\u201d the spokesperson said, per the report.\nSen. Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts is among those who have called on the Justice Department to investigate Nvidia, citing competition concerns, Reuters reported Friday.\nIn addition, French antitrust enforcers are preparing to bring charges against Nvidia, targeting the company\u2019s bundling of its products, according to the report.\nIt was reported in July that the surge in demand for Nvidia\u2019s chips used in AI and computer graphics has prompted regulatory scrutiny.\nIn a regulatory filing last year, the company said that regulators from the European Union, the United States and China had requested information regarding its graphics cards.\nIn a 10-Q filing, Nvidia said: \u201cOur position in markets relating to AI has led to increased interest in our business from regulators worldwide, including the European Union, the United States and China.\u201d\nIt was reported in June that Nvidia has a market share of greater than 80% in AI chips.\nNvidia CEO Jensen Huang said during a company shareholder meeting in June that Nvidia has taken several steps to maintain its dominant position in the market, including transforming from a gaming-focused company to a data center-focused one; partnering with computer makers and cloud providers to create new markets for its AI; and offering chips whose performance and operating costs make them a better value than others that may be cheaper to buy.\nFor all PYMNTS AI coverage, subscribe to the daily AI Newsletter.\nThe post Report: Nvidia Faces US Antitrust Probe, Says It \u2018Wins on Merit\u2019 appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-08-02T12:22:26-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-08-02T12:23:23-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Nvidia-antitrust.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "artificial intelligence", "Department of Justice", "GenAI", "Government", "Innovation", "News", "NVIDIA", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "Technology", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2019090", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/google-anthropic-partnership-catches-eye-of-uk-watchdog/", "title": "Google-Anthropic Partnership Catches Eye of UK Watchdog", "content_html": "Great Britain\u2019s competition regulator is examining\u00a0Google\u2019s\u00a0partnership with artificial intelligence (AI) startup\u00a0Anthropic.
\nThe\u00a0Competition and Markets Authority\u00a0(CMA) said Tuesday (July 30) it is \u201cconsidering whether it is or may be the case that this partnership has resulted in the\u00a0creation of a relevant merger situation\u00a0under the merger provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002.\u201d
\nIf so, the CMA said in its announcement, the regulator will look into \u201cwhether the creation of that relevant merger situation has resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services.\u201d
\nThe CMA is giving interested parties until Aug. 13 to comment on the situation.
\nGoogle last year\u00a0invested $500 million\u00a0into Anthropic, with the promise of significantly greater investments still to come. Similar AI-focused partnerships, such as the one between\u00a0Microsoft\u00a0and\u00a0OpenAI, have also drawn\u00a0scrutiny from regulators.
\nAnd last week, antitrust bodies from the U.S., U.K. and the European Union (EU) issued a rare joint statement outlining their concerns about market concentration and anti-competitive practices in the field of generative AI \u2014 the technology governing\u00a0popular chatbots\u00a0such as OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT.
\n\u201cThere are risks that firms may attempt to restrict key inputs for the development of AI technologies,\u201d the watchdogs warned, stressing the need for action in a rapidly evolving field.
\nThe regulators pointed to\u00a0three key risks: control of critical resources, market power entrenchment and harmful partnerships, saying they were especially worried about how existing digital market leaders might leverage their positions.
\nThe statement argued that \u201cthe AI ecosystem will be better off the more that firms engage in fair dealing,\u201d underlying principles of interoperability and choice.
\n\u201cWhile the authorities can\u2019t create unified regulations, their alignment suggests a coordinated approach to oversight,\u201d PYMNTS wrote. \u201cIn the coming months, this could mean a closer examination of AI-related mergers, partnerships and business practices.\u201d
\nMeanwhile, PYMNTS wrote Tuesday about the burgeoning\u00a0field of AI ethics, which asks a critical question: How do we make sure intelligent machines serve humanity\u2019s best interests? This field grapples with the moral implications of an increasingly automated world, from job displacement to\u00a0existential risks.
\n\u201cAI ethics encompasses a wide range of concerns, including privacy, bias, transparency, accountability, and the long-term societal impacts of artificial intelligence,\u201d that report said. \u201cAs AI systems become more sophisticated and autonomous, the ethical questions surrounding their development and deployment grow increasingly complex and urgent.\u201d
\nThe post Google-Anthropic Partnership Catches Eye of UK Watchdog appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Great Britain\u2019s competition regulator is examining\u00a0Google\u2019s\u00a0partnership with artificial intelligence (AI) startup\u00a0Anthropic.\nThe\u00a0Competition and Markets Authority\u00a0(CMA) said Tuesday (July 30) it is \u201cconsidering whether it is or may be the case that this partnership has resulted in the\u00a0creation of a relevant merger situation\u00a0under the merger provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002.\u201d\nIf so, the CMA said in its announcement, the regulator will look into \u201cwhether the creation of that relevant merger situation has resulted, or may be expected to result, in a substantial lessening of competition within any market or markets in the United Kingdom for goods or services.\u201d\nThe CMA is giving interested parties until Aug. 13 to comment on the situation.\nGoogle last year\u00a0invested $500 million\u00a0into Anthropic, with the promise of significantly greater investments still to come. Similar AI-focused partnerships, such as the one between\u00a0Microsoft\u00a0and\u00a0OpenAI, have also drawn\u00a0scrutiny from regulators.\nAnd last week, antitrust bodies from the U.S., U.K. and the European Union (EU) issued a rare joint statement outlining their concerns about market concentration and anti-competitive practices in the field of generative AI \u2014 the technology governing\u00a0popular chatbots\u00a0such as OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT.\n\u201cThere are risks that firms may attempt to restrict key inputs for the development of AI technologies,\u201d the watchdogs warned, stressing the need for action in a rapidly evolving field.\nThe regulators pointed to\u00a0three key risks: control of critical resources, market power entrenchment and harmful partnerships, saying they were especially worried about how existing digital market leaders might leverage their positions.\nThe statement argued that \u201cthe AI ecosystem will be better off the more that firms engage in fair dealing,\u201d underlying principles of interoperability and choice.\n\u201cWhile the authorities can\u2019t create unified regulations, their alignment suggests a coordinated approach to oversight,\u201d PYMNTS wrote. \u201cIn the coming months, this could mean a closer examination of AI-related mergers, partnerships and business practices.\u201d\nMeanwhile, PYMNTS wrote Tuesday about the burgeoning\u00a0field of AI ethics, which asks a critical question: How do we make sure intelligent machines serve humanity\u2019s best interests? This field grapples with the moral implications of an increasingly automated world, from job displacement to\u00a0existential risks.\n\u201cAI ethics encompasses a wide range of concerns, including privacy, bias, transparency, accountability, and the long-term societal impacts of artificial intelligence,\u201d that report said. \u201cAs AI systems become more sophisticated and autonomous, the ethical questions surrounding their development and deployment grow increasingly complex and urgent.\u201d\nThe post Google-Anthropic Partnership Catches Eye of UK Watchdog appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-07-30T11:08:06-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-07-30T11:08:06-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Google-Anthropic.jpg", "tags": [ "AI", "Anthropic", "ANTITRUST", "artificial intelligence", "cma", "Competition and Markets Authority", "EMEA", "Google", "News", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2016845", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2024/report-meta-facing-eu-fine-for-linking-facebook-and-marketplace/", "title": "Report: Meta Facing EU Fine for Linking Facebook and Marketplace", "content_html": "Meta Platforms\u00a0is reportedly facing its first antitrust fine in the European Union (EU).
\nThat fine could be handed down in a few weeks in response to the company connecting its\u00a0 classified ad service\u00a0Marketplace\u00a0with the\u00a0Facebook\u00a0social network, Reuters\u00a0reported\u00a0Thursday (July 25), citing sources with direct knowledge of the matter.
\nThe fine would come from the European Commission (EC), which in late 2022 accused Meta of giving Marketplace an unfair edge by tying it to Facebook. The EC also said Meta took advantage of its dominance by imposing unfair trading conditions on competing online classified ads services that advertise on Facebook or Instagram.
\nLast year, Meta said it would challenge the EU\u2019s antitrust allegations,\u00a0calling them baseless\u00a0and affirming its commitment to working with regulatory bodies.
\nReuters notes that Meta could face a fine of up to $13.4 billion \u2014 or 10% of its 2023 global revenue \u2014 though EU sanctions are typically much lower than that cap. Sources told the news outlet that the EC will likely issue its decision in September or October before EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager leaves office in November.
\nMeanwhile, Meta this week raised concerns about the\u00a0EU\u2019s approach\u00a0to regulating artificial intelligence (AI). Rob Sherman, the company’s deputy privacy officer and vice president of policy, warned in a Financial Times interview that regulatory efforts could potentially isolate Europe from access to cutting-edge AI services.
\nSherman confirmed that Meta had gotten a request from the EU\u2019s privacy watchdog to\u00a0halt AI model training\u00a0using European data voluntarily. The company is complying with this request, but is concerned about the growing \u201cgap in technologies available in Europe versus the rest of the world,\u201d he said.
\n\u201cThis situation highlights the delicate balance between fostering innovation and ensuring responsible AI development. As tech companies race to\u00a0commercialize AI products, they face constraints from the EU\u2019s digital rules, including data protection regulations like GDPR,\u201d PYMNTS wrote earlier this week, noting that Meta had already held off debuting its AI assistant in Europe due to regulatory concerns.
\n\u201cAs the AI landscape evolves, the tech industry and EU regulators must find common ground to ensure Europe remains competitive in the global AI market while safeguarding user privacy and safety,\u201d that report said.
\nThe post Report: Meta Facing EU Fine for Linking Facebook and Marketplace appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Meta Platforms\u00a0is reportedly facing its first antitrust fine in the European Union (EU).\nThat fine could be handed down in a few weeks in response to the company connecting its\u00a0 classified ad service\u00a0Marketplace\u00a0with the\u00a0Facebook\u00a0social network, Reuters\u00a0reported\u00a0Thursday (July 25), citing sources with direct knowledge of the matter.\nThe fine would come from the European Commission (EC), which in late 2022 accused Meta of giving Marketplace an unfair edge by tying it to Facebook. The EC also said Meta took advantage of its dominance by imposing unfair trading conditions on competing online classified ads services that advertise on Facebook or Instagram.\nLast year, Meta said it would challenge the EU\u2019s antitrust allegations,\u00a0calling them baseless\u00a0and affirming its commitment to working with regulatory bodies.\nReuters notes that Meta could face a fine of up to $13.4 billion \u2014 or 10% of its 2023 global revenue \u2014 though EU sanctions are typically much lower than that cap. Sources told the news outlet that the EC will likely issue its decision in September or October before EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager leaves office in November.\nMeanwhile, Meta this week raised concerns about the\u00a0EU\u2019s approach\u00a0to regulating artificial intelligence (AI). Rob Sherman, the company’s deputy privacy officer and vice president of policy, warned in a Financial Times interview that regulatory efforts could potentially isolate Europe from access to cutting-edge AI services.\nSherman confirmed that Meta had gotten a request from the EU\u2019s privacy watchdog to\u00a0halt AI model training\u00a0using European data voluntarily. The company is complying with this request, but is concerned about the growing \u201cgap in technologies available in Europe versus the rest of the world,\u201d he said.\n\u201cThis situation highlights the delicate balance between fostering innovation and ensuring responsible AI development. As tech companies race to\u00a0commercialize AI products, they face constraints from the EU\u2019s digital rules, including data protection regulations like GDPR,\u201d PYMNTS wrote earlier this week, noting that Meta had already held off debuting its AI assistant in Europe due to regulatory concerns.\n\u201cAs the AI landscape evolves, the tech industry and EU regulators must find common ground to ensure Europe remains competitive in the global AI market while safeguarding user privacy and safety,\u201d that report said.\nThe post Report: Meta Facing EU Fine for Linking Facebook and Marketplace appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2024-07-25T14:55:38-04:00", "date_modified": "2024-07-25T14:55:38-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05cc0fdcc9e387e4f3570c17158c503?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Meta-facebook-2.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "European Commission", "European Union", "Facebook", "Marketplace", "Meta", "meta platforms", "News", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "What's Hot" ] } ] }