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
Excellent. Good news for those who care about the public interest in antitrust lawsuits vs Google brought by the United States.
First, Dept of Justice filed over weekend for an "adverse inference" as to evidence purging that surfaced in the app store and search trials. /1
Second, several major newsrooms (NYT, Bloomberg, MLex, WaPo) appeared to take lessons from the prior lawsuits as to Google's shenanigans to bury evidence, close the courtroom and spin the press coverage. They've already preemptively filed this wknd to avoid the same issues. /2
Here is their Concluding argument along with a link to the full motion. This is huge. We need the plural press shining a light on this trial, the rest of media industry is a victim of the allegations. /3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
As we approach US v Google trial (9/9), more docs unsealed. Today, arguments from DOJ unsuccessfully trying to throw out a Google-funded experts' survey producing hundreds of pages of opinions on the current ad market. Most interesting to me, deep in it is a "No Contact" list. /1
It's an important work product for Google's defense. another expert called it unreliable. For one, all six of the "Big Six" ad agency holding companies were on the "No Contact" list, five of them accounted for like 2/3 of the ad buying through Google. So yeah, a problem here. /2
The "No Contact list" also included nearly every major adtech firm, every major publisher (almost every single DCN member), so I would seriously question how they didn't filter out most experts in this exclusion list. /3
woah. a deeply concerning internal Google doc just unsealed in US DOJ vs Google (adtech antitrust trial seven weeks from now).
Smells like bid rigging.
Translation (by me):
Red = bad for Google
Green = good for G
'Levels playing field' = helps G
'fairer competition' = helps G /1
at the very least, demonstrates the conflict of interest with having significant market power on both sides. here is a Google doc roadmapping these changes to their auctions from the buy-side and the sell-side ahead of analyzing the impact and mitigating outcry. /2
for example, here is what looks to be Google analyzing what would happen to their biz when they removed "Last Look" which gave Google a significant advantage after an ad auction had been run. Don't miss the Green at bottom. /3
more news yesterday in flurry of activity in lawsuit vs Facebook for (over)paying FTC $5B to protect Zuckerberg. Big names involved. Board records inspection shows who's who in 'approval' - everyone now gone except Zuckerberg, Andresseen and Alford. Gets interesting quickly... /1
Yes, Andreessen joined Thiel in politics with full-throated endorsement of Trump with close allies. Alford was CFO of Chan Zuckerberg right before approval. WSJ reported Chenault and Zients (important: now Biden's chief of staff) stepped down over disagreements with Mark Z. /2
So what's happening. Well, first in April 2024 all of these prior and current board members were served in the lawsuit. Again, this is based on a prior records inspection of non-privileged board documents and the Court at that point deciding to allow the case to move forward. /3
Friday night KA-boom. In adtech antitrust lawsuit against Google, court has ordered the state AGs may depose Google co-founder Sergey Brin and CEO Sundar Pichai. Huge. /1
So the two cited reasons Pichai will be deposed (although not all of them) are incredibly sensitive. 1), “Jedi Blue,” the alleged collusion with Facebook that everyone wrongly wrote off back earlier in this lawsuit. Google CEO Pichai met directly with Facebook CEO Zuckerberg. /2
A reminder the Google and Facebook deal (aka the “NBA” or “Jedi Blue”) is also in a private antitrust suit against Facebook. The deal was signed by the lieutenants of the CEOs (Sheryl Sandberg for Facebook). /3
US v Google flooded docket (103 filings!) over weekend as Court said Friday...hey now, let's skip summary judgment, this baby is going to trial. Much is companies trying to keep their secrets sealed but we get a sense for the witnesses. And a small taste of evidence to come. /1
On the companies filing to keep their secrets sealed which they mostly provided under subpoena, it's a mix of adtech, agencies, platforms, you name it. /2
We also learn some glossary items which likely come up:
'RASTA' - Google's tool to evaluate new 'launches' (aka changes) in ad serving system, runs on live traffic
'Ariane' - identifies and summarized launches
'Launch' - creative name (lol), it replaced Ariane in 2020/2021 /3