Google is once more facing the opportunity of a forced breakup as closely-watched hearings on easy methods to tackle its monopoly over digital promoting technology kicked off in Virginia federal court on Monday.
Justice Department attorney Julia Tarver Wood slammed Google’s proposal for a lighter penalty – comparing it to “[putting] a band-aid on a seriously severed limb” – and said a forced divestiture of its key ad exchange, AdX, was needed to revive fair competition and protect news publishers and advertisers that depend on the system.
“The means to cheat are buried in computer codes and algorithms,” said Wood, who also referred to Google as a “recidivist monopolist” during her opening statement.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema will preside over two weeks of hearings. In April, she ruled that the Big Tech giant had violated the Sherman Act by dominating the net publisher ad server market, in addition to the ad-exchange market that connects ad buyers to sellers.
Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, has argued that the DOJ’s proposal risks breaking its promoting tech platform entirely, making it harder for advertisers and publishers to do business. As a substitute, the corporate has proposed making its tools easier to make use of and compatible with services offered by its rivals.
Karen Dunn, Google’s attorney, said the DOJ’s push for a forced sale was “radical and reckless.” She added that Google’s plan, whether it is approved, would deliver a “workable, effective and enforceable” treatment inside a yr, Bloomberg reported.
Dunn, who argued through the initial trial that the DOJ misunderstood how Google’s ad technology works, said the corporate’s proposal was as extensive because it could possibly be “without breaking the tech.”
It’s the newest development in an ongoing high-wire act for Google, which escaped significant penalties earlier this month in a separate case targeting its online search empire.
In that case, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google was a “monopolist,” but opted to merely require the corporate to share data with rivals moderately than accept the DOJ’s proposal for a forced selloff of its Chrome web browser. Critics decried Mehta’s decision as a “slap on the wrist” that effectively allowed Google to proceed operating its monopoly.
Dunn made multiple references to Mehta’s decision on Chrome while making the case against a breakup within the digital promoting trial.
Experts expected to testify through the treatment phase include a former executive from The Post’s parent company News Corp, in addition to executives from the Each day Mail and media conglomerate Advance Local.
Whatever the consequence of the treatment phase, Google has previously vowed to appeal Brinkema’s ruling that it operates two illegal monopolies within the digital promoting sector.
That appeal can’t begin until the treatment phase is complete. Brinkema will make the ultimate decision. The case was originally brought in 2023 by the Biden administration’s Justice Department and a coalition of states.
With Post wires
Google is once more facing the opportunity of a forced breakup as closely-watched hearings on easy methods to tackle its monopoly over digital promoting technology kicked off in Virginia federal court on Monday.
Justice Department attorney Julia Tarver Wood slammed Google’s proposal for a lighter penalty – comparing it to “[putting] a band-aid on a seriously severed limb” – and said a forced divestiture of its key ad exchange, AdX, was needed to revive fair competition and protect news publishers and advertisers that depend on the system.
“The means to cheat are buried in computer codes and algorithms,” said Wood, who also referred to Google as a “recidivist monopolist” during her opening statement.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema will preside over two weeks of hearings. In April, she ruled that the Big Tech giant had violated the Sherman Act by dominating the net publisher ad server market, in addition to the ad-exchange market that connects ad buyers to sellers.
Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, has argued that the DOJ’s proposal risks breaking its promoting tech platform entirely, making it harder for advertisers and publishers to do business. As a substitute, the corporate has proposed making its tools easier to make use of and compatible with services offered by its rivals.
Karen Dunn, Google’s attorney, said the DOJ’s push for a forced sale was “radical and reckless.” She added that Google’s plan, whether it is approved, would deliver a “workable, effective and enforceable” treatment inside a yr, Bloomberg reported.
Dunn, who argued through the initial trial that the DOJ misunderstood how Google’s ad technology works, said the corporate’s proposal was as extensive because it could possibly be “without breaking the tech.”
It’s the newest development in an ongoing high-wire act for Google, which escaped significant penalties earlier this month in a separate case targeting its online search empire.
In that case, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google was a “monopolist,” but opted to merely require the corporate to share data with rivals moderately than accept the DOJ’s proposal for a forced selloff of its Chrome web browser. Critics decried Mehta’s decision as a “slap on the wrist” that effectively allowed Google to proceed operating its monopoly.
Dunn made multiple references to Mehta’s decision on Chrome while making the case against a breakup within the digital promoting trial.
Experts expected to testify through the treatment phase include a former executive from The Post’s parent company News Corp, in addition to executives from the Each day Mail and media conglomerate Advance Local.
Whatever the consequence of the treatment phase, Google has previously vowed to appeal Brinkema’s ruling that it operates two illegal monopolies within the digital promoting sector.
That appeal can’t begin until the treatment phase is complete. Brinkema will make the ultimate decision. The case was originally brought in 2023 by the Biden administration’s Justice Department and a coalition of states.
With Post wires
