Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the U.S....
It's 286 pages - be back with a thread shortly along with implications for the adtech antitrust trial starting in five weeks. /1
ok, here we go. I read the 286 pages for those who don't have time. Or to help translate to industry and public minds. This is a landmark decision vs Google. The court has found Google's exclusive deals, primarily with Apple, foreclosed one half of the search market. /2
it also found Google manipulated its ad prices without - even considering - competitive effects. Reminder they doubled their search text ads on surfaces so THIS ABUSE SCREWED THE PUBLIC AND PUBLISHERS BY MANY MANY TENS OF BILLIONS. /3
Oh and about the finding in another federal court (NdCal) Google purged evidence which just this weekend DOJ motioned for an "adverse inference" decision, this Court largely agrees but says it's irrelevant as intent isn't necessary. He already found Google violated law. /4
Digging deeper on things that stood out to me. Court as expected very much understood Google's myth of Hal Varian, Adam Kovacevich, Googlers downplaying scale is just that. He flags Google received 19x more queries than all other rivals combined on mobile. /5
I've reiterated this data point from the trial as I believe in remedies stage it is critical to consider impact on future of AI. 98% of unique phrases are seen only by Google. Very important to grounding and training LLMs in real-time. No one can touch this market power. /6
This is a super important finding by Court. There is a whole section on importance of scale (p234) but generally speaking Google's approach to relentlessly crawling, freshness, and query data scale is captured. Again, highly relevant to avoiding further entrenchment in AI. /7
Court did a nice job batting down Google's myths and noise in its defense. For instance, so many times Google's shills pointed out Bing users search for Google but Court flipped it pointing out 80% of MS Edge users stick to Bing. Mostly internal docs killed Google, though. /8
A couple fun visuals in the decision. Here is one from Microsoft demonstrating the fly wheel of market power to users to data to market power.... /9
And yes, the marketing funnel :) Google attempted to say this is a dead concept in marketing which was patently absurd in the context of how it was being put into evidence. /10
Court found Google's attempt to a reduction in data study to show diminishing returns of data to be interesting but then again turned it around on Google to ask why it needs to store an incredible amount of data on every user for 18 months considering privacy and costs. /11
In terms of Google's argument that generative AI is an emerging competitor, the Court mostly batted it down, too. AGAIN, I AM SHOUTING THAT AI'S MARKET POWER TO ALSO DOMINATE GAI is SUPER IMPORTANT TO THE REMEDY STAGE. BREAK UP BROWSER/CHROME, OS/ANDROID, SEARCH DEALS. /12
In terms of pricing manipulation findings, Court chose not to reiterate all of the specific examples from the trial but just read this carefully and understand its implications to the rest of industry. if you're in a trade group with Google, maybe think twice how they act. /13
In fact, the Court found Google just spread out its manipulations of pricing in order to make it appear to just be "noise." This is the part where my screaming in joy (thanks for all of the messages everyone :) ) turned to anger as I consider impact to Rest of World. /14
Again, read this and consider the impact for the company approaching $300 billion in revenues. For those who have argued on Google's behalf against the revenue sharing with news orgs in Canada and Australia, just send them this page please. /15
Here is a profound and important finding that should play into US v Facebook, too and antitrust law in general. The Court notes (and it goes on to another page) that ability to reduce quality (think privacy fails) is on par with increasing price without losing share. /16
Barrier to entry impossible to match. /17
Beyond damning evidence from inside Google, former executives also were powerful. The Court makes special note of Ramaswamy. There are several "Xooglers" testifying in adtech trial starting 9/9. Note, perjury is a crime. They know that. /18
Google also tried to argued its deals for default search slot weren't "exclusive." Court crushed this argument using Microsoft decision. This may well be important for the appeal. /19
Court also said the same thing about Google's MADA - its deals to bundle its services for Android devices to carriers. Again, exclusive in practice. No one else can match it. /20
Google failed to argue its revenue sharing on Android was "procompetitive" because it passes so much cash into the ecosystem. This will likely be relevant to Adtech trial, too, as Google will argue its end-to-end control of ad market helps everyone. /21
Don't overlook the impact this may have on Apple. Yes, I believe any remedy has to look at forced divestiture of Chrome and Android in addition to killing the exclusive dealing. But if Apple loses its sweetheart deal with Google, it may lose $12B in revenue (mostly profits). /22
As it relates to other pending lawsuits, FTC should note that social media ads were found to be a distinctly different market than search. We know this but nice to see another Court find it as Meta and Amazon will likely try to confuse relevant markets. /23
Also, noted Court took evidence from the pending Klein v Meta/Facebook private antitrust lawsuit in NdCal. I hadn't noted this evidence but apparently when Nike boycotted Facebook, the dollars didn't flow to Google. Note that please. /24
So I will end there for now. Props to the plaintiffs. Congratulations. Their work coupled with a Court willing to take the time to understand the market is the reason they won. Somewhere I have tweets calling they would bring down Google but nice to see. Now to remedies and the 9/9 Adtech trial. /25
A link to press coverage as I make my way through it.... /26
wow. NdCal just denied Facebook's attempt to dismiss securities suit for Cambridge Analytica cover-up. Court says plaintiffs credibly alleged Zuckerberg and Sandberg knew it "possessed over 40mil user profiles" way earlier. 4th amended complaint added/redacted cited evidence. /1
Count I, II and III now proceed, all alleged (civil) violations of 1934 SEC Act including over $5B in stock sales by Zuckerberg. This is the case Facebook already took up to SCOTUS to be denied cert. In DE, they settled similar case as director Andreessen was set to testify. /2
In this case, the executive defendants are Zuckerberg, Sandberg and CFO Wehner. What is interesting is it's added new evidence squeezed out more recently in courts including Court sanctions against Sandberg for deleting "relevant emails" over a pseudonymous gmail account. /3
Big. A major new law & tech paper takes on the economics of behavioral advertising - the kind that tracks users across multiple businesses and contexts, not just on sites they choose to visit.
It challenges industry’s favorite claim: that tracking is a “win-win” for everyone. /1
Bear with my thread. You may know I've been sharing Google and Meta monopoly abuse concerns for nearly a decade (courts now ruling). That said, I've always said ubiquitous data collection across the web (mostly NOT on the duopoly's own services!) is what fuels their dominance. /2
At the heart of the debate is this Figure 1 - and two very different ways to frame it.
Framing #1 (the industry narrative): Data aka 'signal' -> Better targeting -> More relevant ads -> More revenue -> Free content -> Everyone wins!
Simple. Elegant. But entirely misleading. /3
The 8hr video of Jack Smith’s testimony was released by Congress on New Years’ Eve in between Epstein and Venezuela. It’s an extraordinary display of Smith’s integrity and attention to justice and fairness on 1/6. Allison Gill deserves praise for curating the key clips. 1/4
Smith clearly represents all who worked towards justice and public interest, expressing his confidence and rationale he had the evidence to prove Jan 6th case to a jury. He also shows his gratitude to those retaliated against - in just doing their jobs. This stood out to me. 2/4
I must say I’m impressed by Covington & Burling law firm who has stood strong during this retaliation. This is just 1/6 - they’ve worked with Smith to be cautious to not discuss any confidential details in his classified docs report still sealed by Judge Cannon. (1.3x to fit) 3/4
So many mind blowing sentences in this just incredible Wall Street Journal report. Starting here, “Witkoff, who hasn’t traveled to Ukraine this year, is set to visit Russia for the sixth time next week and will again meet Putin. He insisted he isn’t playing favorites.” /1
“Inside were details of the commercial and
economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.” /2
“European official asked Witkoff to start speaking with allies over the secure fixed line Europe's heads of state use to conduct sensitive
diplomatic conversations. Witkoff demurred, as he traveled too much to use the cumbersome system.” /3
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