On Friday, the US government demanded that Google divest its highly lucrative advertising technology division. This follows a judge’s finding that the tech giant is responsible for a second illegal monopoly in just a year.
U.S. government attorney Julia Turber Wood stated in federal court in Virginia, “We have a defendant who has discovered a way to protest. Maintaining the monopoly of repeat offenders is not a viable solution,” she added.
This marks the second request from the US government, amidst another suit regarding Google’s premier search engine, which also seeks to address sales involving the Chrome browser.
The US government specifically pointed out that Google dominates the market for publishing banner advertisements on websites, impacting a wide range of creators and small news outlets.
A second phase of the Virginia court hearing is set for September, where discussions will focus on modifying the advertising landscape per the judge’s ruling.
During the initial phase of last year’s trial, plaintiffs alleged that the majority of websites utilize Google’s Ad software products.
After the newsletter promotion
District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema largely agreed with the rationale and found that Google has established an illegal monopoly over the advertising software and tools utilized by publishers, albeit partially dismissing claims concerning tools used by advertisers.
The US government indicated it would leverage this trial to motivate Google to divest its exchange operations with ad publishers, asserting that it cannot be relied upon to change its practices.
“Behavioral modification is not enough since it won’t stop Google from discovering new methods of exerting control,” stated Tarver Wood.
Google has countered the suggestion of agreeing to a binding commitment to enhance transparency with advertisers and publishers on the AD Tech platform. However, Google’s attorney Karen Dunn acknowledged the “trust issues” raised in the case and expressed willingness to accept oversight to ensure compliance with the judge’s order. Google also contested the proposed divestiture as inappropriate, which Judge Brinkema quickly dismissed as a viable debate.
The judge encouraged both parties to seek mediation, stressing that a negotiated settlement is far more efficient and cost-effective than conducting a prolonged trial.
Source: www.theguardian.com
