Snap! FTC amended lawsuit to break up Facebook - green light from the court! Congrats to FTC.
Rather than spend time dunking on FB's friendlies who suggested it had failed, I hope you will ignore their next round of talking points since the last ones were so damn wrong. /1
First, they told you the FTC failed to even define a market - their go-to line. This was entirely false, the court said they had failed to provide metrics to back it up which they added in spades to the amended complaint which had the same core theory as the Court notes. /2
The really really obviously on Facebook's payroll and influence list said things like the FTC had already "approved" the Instagram and WhatsApp deals which were sort of the rookie-league arguments and false. But again, the Judge clarified why those points were irrelevant. /3
back to actual arguments of the case, the Court had already accepted the market definition and then now tips the hat to the use of three metrics as backup. Anyone who has actually run a digital biz knows why you must look at multiple metrics holistically. So does the Judge. /4
In terms of Facebook's argument that buying Instagram and WhatsApp wasn't anticompetitive and bad for consumers, the Court throws in the compelling point of how Facebook pulled back its own investment in its own product after the deal. Point taken. /5
And love seeing the Court agree with Facebook that consumer harm also matters and that can't be proven on price (since facebook is free) but then agreeing the allegations are solid. DISCOVERY ON THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE A GOLD MINE as we all know, Facebook is a cesspool. /6
I mean one more point here on consumers. The allegation is market power allowed FB to lower its service quality for consumers. Does anyone doubt this? Do we really believe Facebook wouldn't have better addressed its problems of the past few years if it had more competition? /7
So when Facebook attempts to argue FTC re-arranged chairs on Titanic or FB's paid lobby group (hi @adamkovac) points out meaningless language in the decision (yes, Count II remains in the complaint), please return to my first tweet as they also said it should be thrown out. /8
And my threaded comments on the original amended complaint.
also, I should have pointed out the Court also threw out Facebook's weak sauce argument against the Chair's ability to file the case (google and amazon have tried similar arguments in other matters).
As background, here was my thread on the amended FTC case filed in August.
Saturday’s “No Kings” protests have filled front pages across America with impactful visuals and headlines of peaceful protests. Many included the eye popping NYC Times Square shot. Here in the Dothan Eagle (Alabama). But everyone turned out. See Montana in its Missoulian. /1
Plenty of big city energy from St. Louis, Missouri to Chicago, Illinois. /2
Midwest with Cleveland, Ohio to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. /3
US v Google remedies: Nothing groundbreaking from return of DOJ’s star economist this morning. Court tested if his concerns over solely behavioral remedies assume distrust in Google (won’t follow court orders). I don’t think it mattered relative to where we were last night... /1
Yes, some will read as leaning against structural-remedy interest. I took it simply her clarifying she doesn’t need to lean on distrust if structural is shown tech feasible. Although witness pointed out distrust harms competition investment levels. /2
Court also very much nodded head when witness Lee explained why he didn’t do “but for” analysis to a dollar amount. Mehta also determined in search it was infeasible and unnecessary so cross that out of Google’s defense imho. /3
ok, this is HUGE. Late Friday, Penske (PMC) filed a wicked-smart, landmark antitrust lawsuit against Google. I've now read it in full and I'm very impressed. Importantly, it's the first antitrust suit for Google tying its AI-driven products to its adjudicated search monopoly. /1
The core claim: Google is abusing its search monopoly to force pubs to hand over content - not just for traditional search indexing but to feed its AI. Google then repurposes it to substitute them with its own services breaking the fundamental bargain of the open web. /2
Penske says this is not a fair exchange. If it weren't for Google's adjudicated monopoly power (recall Judge Mehta said they get 19x as many queries as next biggest), Google would be paying pubs for these rights or if it didn't then they would opt-out of providing them. /3
OK all ye people depressed Judge Mehta didn't order Google broken into bits this week. I'm here to cheer you up. DOJ has its other remedies trial in 16 days and just posted its PFJ (Proposed Final Remedies) now 60+ pages of brilliant detail. Let me walk you through key terms. /1
This is the 2023 US v Google adtech win - the one DCN and its premium publishers have long been much more deep and focused on. Here’s what it means for publishers of all types - and why it will be a massive win for the open web if Judge Brinkema signs on (I believe she will). /2
First, clear structural remedies. Google must divest AdX, its ad exchange, w/in 2yrs and likely DFP, its publisher ad server. No more vertical ad stack monopoly with interest conflicts. This would finally decouple tools Google can use to rig auctions and suppress pub revenues. /3
All eyes at Google on streaming NFL game tonight but Google Inc and its many monopolies have had quite the week. I’ve been absorbing on this end, some quick Friday thoughts on things missed. Bad news certainly for the public, and also DCN members, in US v Google Search case. /1
Judge Mehta said "no thanks" to helping publishers - because he said no pubs testified. Maybe that’s what retaliation fear looks like??? He also noted the unlawful conduct was about distribution deals, not deals with publishers. More on that in a minute. /2
Despite Mehta finding Google illegally maintained its 95%+ search monopoly with browser deals, he also said it’s OK for Google to keep owning Chrome - the world’s biggest browser - so they can keep paying everyone else and free riding on their own browser. All bad here. /3
Woah. Facebook just settled immediately before board members Andreessen, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Desmond-Hellman, and Sheryl Sandberg were set to testify as to who knew what and when…depriving public of any accountability and facts in courtroom from board and officer comms. 1/3
Counter to Facebook lawyers framing yesterday, the DC AG suit isn’t dead (awaiting DC Circuit from 1/30 hearing), and NdCal shareholder suit also still alive. This is the closest to
Courtroom testimony after about $8B+ in settlements. 2/3
Credit to Reuters, Delaware Online who I saw actually showed up to cover. It’s likely why Facebook, Zuckerberg and its board, let this one get so close. But the grid. But today things were likely to get very very hot. 3/3