Woah.
Google is effectively trying to buy out the United States by tendering a cashier's check for the claimed max damages from screwing industry with adtech market power abuses. US DOJ's adtech antitrust trial seeking to break them up is months away. 1/4
And then with google's payment, they're trying to get it switched from jury to bench trial. The money is an after thought, what they clearly don't want is a jury of Americans reviewing damning evidence (see Bernanke) which may be harder to appeal leading to structural remedy. 2/4
lol, G. The lawsuit is smart for jury as U.S. explained Google's alleged abuse so Americans understand it by comparing G's market power on all sides to wall street. Hell, Google's own executive made this analogy "if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE."
A jury will get this. 3/4
So yeah, good luck with this one, Google. The point of the lawsuit is to break you up. Parallel adtech suits in EDTX and SDNY plus you lost app store suit (to a jury!), a search decision coming late summer and E.U. closing in on adtech, too. Walls closing in. You feel it? 4/4
Here is a link to the motion () they just filed. And then a thread on this lawsuit from when it was originally filed in January, 2023. 5/4 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
ha ha, Google dug up a British constitutional law scholar as their expert on why the Seventh Amendment doesn't allow a jury of Americans to decide if Google screwed over the rest of the advertising industry. 6/4 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
News cycles. News cycles. What I called the "mother of all lawsuits" for Facebook in 2021 goes to trial TOMORROW. Zuckerberg, Marc Andreessen, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Thiel, other board members expected to testify live as to who knew what and when in its largest scandal ever. /1
Meanwhile, Zuckerberg and Facebook comms have successfully flooded the zone with AI-hype and exclusive CEO interviews mostly distracting the press away from a trial on how they leveraged, and allegedly abused, personal data to drive a decade of massive growth in mobile share. /2
The case involves allegations the board broke its loyalty to company (and Zuckerberg insider traded on stock) after Facebook had been long violating its FTC consent decree and other privacy laws - all covered up by nearly $8 billion in settlements ($5B alone with the FTC). /3