Tags containing: "US-v-Google-II"

That’s a wrap: Where arguments landed in US v. Google II

September 30, 2024 Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence – Check My Ads

Miraculously, US v. Google II ended on day 15, a whopping three weeks earlier than initial estimates. During the last week of trial, Google had the opportunity to present its defense, which, as expected, focused on technical legal arguments, choosing to reframe their conduct, rather than to refute it. Many in the courtroom see this as a function of necessity. The facts aren’t on their side, and Google’s credibility has long been damaged by evidence deletion.

The crux of Google’s argument asserts that even if their conduct in isolation is bad for publishers, it could be good for advertisers on a whole. And if it’s good for advertisers, it’s good for the market. The problem is that they were unable to really see this argument through. Google focused their efforts on, for example, trying to land their preferred market definition so that the rest of their points might make a material difference. Unfortunately for the defense, proving their market definition argument requires some big logical leaps, even without considering the DOJ’s masterful case to the contrary.

Dubious definitions and distinctions

For Google to land its argument that adtech is a single two-sided market, the Court would need to agree on a couple of ill-argued points. (And ignore even numerous contradictions and absurdities.)

First, the defense made the case that adtech is not comprised of distinct product markets serving different customers and purposes. Rather, it is one massive product market for tools that connect buyers and impressions. The product, in their view, is the “connection” that is made. They rely on this in order to downplay their market share, and distort the competition that they face.

Second, they stated that this massive market is a two-sided platform, where both buyers and sellers are present for the transaction, and there are indirect network effects such that benefitting one side of the market ultimately benefits another. They rely on this to distort their exclusionary conduct and justify their harms. It’s not tying and exclusionary conduct, they say. It’s vertical integration. Therefore Google’s legitimate refusal to deal has procompetitive effects that benefit everyone.

A weak combination

Unfortunately for Google. combining these two arguments weakens the plausibility of each one on its own. The DOJ indeed agrees that the ad exchange can be considered two-sided. But, as we saw with Dr. Israel’s testimony this week, extending this to the publisher ad server, for example, creates an absurd result. Google needs the Court to believe Israel’s suggestion that if a publisher ad server degrades in quality, it will somehow result in advertisers moving spend to social platforms. To many in the courtroom, this is a ridiculous argument. In fact, the DOJ demonstrated this throughout the trial and in their rebuttal. Google further contradicts itself in maintaining that the presence of more sellers would increase the value of the platform to buyers, while simultaneously saying that restricting RTB to AdX is procompetitive, as it allows Google to allegedly perform robust vetting and ensure inventory quality, safety, and security.

Then there’s the matter of reasonable substitutes, where Google, especially through Israel’s testimony, put forth a number of substitutes that are either not viable, or are not actual substitutes. According to the Google argument, a publisher can just “move” their ad inventory from web to apps, Israel suggested, which ignores the practical realities.

If a publisher doesn’t have an app, Judge Brinkema asked, wouldn’t that cost publishers money? In that case, yes, there would be an additional step, Israel concedes. Daily Mail’s Wheatland further illustrated the impracticality and insufficiency of app ad sales as a substitute for open web display upon rebuttal. Only 2% of their readers have downloaded the Daily Mail app, even after a campaign aiming to increase app usage.’

Transparent wrap

While DOJ’s case focuses primarily on harm to publishers, there was an approximately 30 minute stretch at the beginning of Israel’s testimony where his only mention of anything publisher-adjacent was to explain the origin of the “cellophane fallacy” as the theory that prices for cellophane might go up so much that people resort to wrapping their sandwiches in newspaper. Ultimately, Google demonstrated to the Court its complete disregard for its publisher customers, while simultaneously insufficiently making the case how advertisers benefitted.

Bill Isaacson: How many small independent publishers are left?

Dr. Israel: There was some discussion in my report. Clearly, many fewer than there were.

This is all confused further by Israel’s suggestion that products in this alleged market are both complements and substitutes. They’re asking for the Court to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics, with eyes closed. They’d also expect the Court to ignore all of the evidence presented by the DOJ’s credible experts and sincere fact witnesses about the scope and effects of Google’s abuse of power and to look past the emails and documents demonstrating the damning realities of Google’s intent. In a move that could only be intended to win by confusion, they ask the Court to follow the arguments made by a career-expert-witness who derives 80% of his income from such assignments and has been lambasted for his “misunderstanding and misapplication of antitrust concepts” in the past.

Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 20-cv-03556- BLF (N.D. Cal.)

No-nonsense Judge Brinkema said Google’s contradictory position on market definition in Northern District of California is “problematic for Google.” He called their employee testimony “highly questionable.” So, it seems unlikely that this judge will follow Google blindly into this particular rabbit hole to its far-fetched wonderland.

We’ll find out soon enough. The parties must submit their revised Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by November 4th, and closing arguments are set for 10 a.m. on November 25th, with a decision to follow likely by January ‘25. In the meantime, Google can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. The evidence is out there, and their systematic, multi-year effort to capture and maintain control of the adtech ecosystem to the detriment of its customers is on full display. The company is currently awaiting remedies for the Search antitrust case, and still has the 2025 adtech antitrust trial in Texas to look forward to. As light continues shining into Google’s darkest corners, their troubles are just beginning.

A recap week two of US v. Google II

A recap of week one of US v. Google II

Advertising | Perspectives | Press

A recap of week two of US v. Google II

September 23, 2024 Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence – Check My Ads

Following a four-and-a-half-hour cross-examination of economist Robin S. Lee, the DOJ rested its case-in-chief Friday September 20. Friday, we also got to see what Google has in store for its defense, which continues in earnest this week.

If Google’s first witness serves as any indication, it’ll be a long week of the company’s textbook weaponized complexity, jazz-hands, and word games. So, some of us in the courtroom made our own word games to help pass the time: I’ve created more Buzzword Bingo cards for the week for those that are in EDVA. But why should we get all the fun?

Click here to download our US v. Google II crossword puzzle.

Now, as week three of this monumental trail begins, here’s a recap from inside the courtroom of week two along with predictions on what we can expect this week.

Revelations and receipts from week 2

More detail can be found in my daily updates, but here are some key moments from last week, with receipts (i.e. Trial Exhibits).

1. Google thought Yield Manager tech was “irrelevant.” Yet they paid $100M over valuation to “park it somewhere.”

While some have pointed out that Google integrated the Yield Management capabilities, the discussion at trial was focused on the RTB capabilities Google chose to deprecate to perpetuate AdX’s advantage via Dynamic Allocation. (See: PTX0085, PTX0112, PTX0060, PTX0058).

2. The IAB Tech Lab declined to take in Prebid.js because Google, its largest funder at the time, “vehemently objected.”

For more on this, have a listen to the Marketecture podcast featuring Brian O’Kelley, and check out AdExchanger’s coverage. It would have been nice to be able to point to a response here from IAB Tech Lab, but it doesn’t seem like that is going to happen.

3. The sell-side product team wanted to make Exchange Bidding much better than Header Bidding to legitimately serve the interests of publisher customers. Leadership told them to aim lower.

Jonathan Bellack’s testimony shed more light on internal dynamics, reminiscent of Eisar Lipkovitz’ comments that “the machine won.” Bellack wanted EB to be a superior product that wins over publishers, but leadership said “slightly better” is good enough.

What is the incentive to invest in innovation that serves the interests of customers when they have nowhere else to go? The market power is further illustrated by a 2014 experime which revealed that Google could profitably raise GDN prices by +7% for buyers to hit a higher margin target without a care in the world.

What to expect during week 3

Google’s first witness was sell-side sales VP, Scott Sheffer, who has been with the company for 18 years and counting. They began with a charade that came to be known as the adtech Spaghetti Football, where Sheffer walked through a clearly-rehearsed exercise of mapping out Google’s view of the adtech ecosystem. Naturally, Google is everywhere.

Those in the courtroom seriously questioned the strategy behind the use of this visual because it so clearly illustrates that Google’s control over the adtech ecosystem extends well beyond even the scope of this trial. Google has been known to weaponize complexity. The less people feel they understand, the more susceptible they become to Google’s narrative filling in the blanks. However, if their big plan is to confuse Judge Brinkema into siding with them, they may want to consider that strategy.

This approach further backfired when the DOJ untangled the graphic in order to leave only the products on-screen that allow publishers to indirectly sell display ad inventory on their websites, and enable advertisers to buy it.

Indeed, Google’s approach at this point appeared to be off to a very rocky start. As for where Google may be headed, the company faces some significant roadblocks:

Before they started their case-in-chief, Judge Brinkema already made it clear that there’s no way Google wpi;d be allowed to call six witnesses related to government advertising. “One, maybe two,” she said. Three of the planned six were advertisers, and three were Google account managers on government business.
If Google had been planning to call a lot of their long-time employees, they’re likely reconsidering that after Judge Brinkema suggested much of Sheffer’s testimony was “tainted” and “highly questionable” given Google had already been on notice about litigation during the events he attempted to recount. The DOJ has done a great job of ensuring the spoliation issues remain a constant rain cloud over the heads of their opponents and their witnesses. Nevertheless, I’m sure we’ll hear from at least one engineer about how daunting it would have been to enable unrestricted real-time bidding on third party exchanges, or to allow publishers to get AdX real-time pricing in ad servers other than DFP.
Google’s full witness list also included a lot of “Grow with Google” businesses and small publishers, and Sheffer’s testimony leaned heavily into Google’s purported goal to foster the creator economy. If they’re planning on calling more than one or two of each, they are likely in for another rude awakening.
We can expect that Google will over-index on expert witnesses. The core of their defense is to play games with market definition and to reframe tying and exclusionary conduct as legitimate refusals to deal. We already have a preview of we’ll hear (at length) from Mark Israel.
We can expect that Google will rely significantly on deposition read-ins, where they don’t have to worry about unexpected cross-examination, and can cherry-pick what they feel they need to be part of the official record, with a keen eye on the inevitable appeal.

It’s slim pickings on what Judge Brinkema will allow, much less find compelling, so it makes sense that they expect to wrap up their case-in-chief by Thursday. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s sooner, now that they’ve been told that testimony by conflicted loyalists will not be persuasive.

Google’s games and tricks

One of my observations throughout Google’s defense is their affinity for jumping from side to side as it suits their argument. They bob-and-weave around the DOJ’s allegations by speaking to alleged advertiser benefits of conduct that harmed publishers, and publisher benefits of conduct that harmed rivals. The most frustrating manifestation of this is via their argument that the DOJ’s markets are overly-narrow and gerrymandered. Google loves to try to land the point that certain channels can be interchangeable to advertisers, and that they do face competition in the single two-sided market they insist adtech is. This completely evades the DOJ’s core point.

The DOJ has focused heavily on publishers as the key victims of Google’s conduct, with a specific focus on the majority of publishers that have both direct sold and indirectly sold display ad inventory on their websites, and thus need an ad server. No amount of alleged advertiser alternatives addresses the stronghold Google has publishers in. Only when pressed does Google point to a swath of (impractical and incomplete) alternatives available to publishers (e.g. running prebid.js without an ad server, or using two ad servers, where one of them is still GAM).

It often makes this trial feel like watching chickens and ducks try to have a conversation, and Google revels in this game of rhetorical fallacies. Ultimately, however, dancing around the core issues and harm to publishers only makes Google’s alleged stated ambition to fund the world’s information appear that much more disingenuous.

earlier coverage:

A recap of week one of US v. Google II

Advertising | Perspectives | Policy

A recap of week one of US v. Google II

September 16, 2024 Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence – Check My Ads

With week one of US v. Google II in the books, let’s take stock of where things stand, and what’s to come.

For most of us (particularly those of us in the courtroom), last week’s big moments are as much about revelation as validation. We learned what we all have suspected about all of the times Google definitively knew the perception, effect, and harms of their conduct, and did what they wanted to anyway, because they could.

The DOJ wove together a compelling narrative around its allegations of the ways in which Google’s abuse of dominance across their trifecta of monopolies left publishers with little choice, and even less control. According to the DOJ:

Google used its existing search dominance to amass the demand of millions of search advertisers within their ad network.
Google acquired the dominant ad server and tied it to the ad exchange. Google Ads demand was made exclusive to the AdX exchange, which gave its ad server (f/k/a DFP) exclusive access to real-time pricing information from the exchange.
Sitting on both sides, Google made unilateral rules that disadvantaged its competitors, harmed its customers, and entrenched its dominance, all the while extracting monopoly rents.

Revelations and receipts

More detail can be found in my daily updates from the trial. But here are some key moments from last week, with receipts (aka Trial Exhibits).

Google knew they were overcharging but why lower prices if you don’t have to? See: PTX0612 (below), PTX0624(below), PTX0864. Google knew that the 20% take rate was about double the market norm, but that they were insulated from price pressure by their AdWords unique demand.

When publishers found a way to take back control and reduce their dependency via Header Bidding, Google made it their mission to thwart it. See: PTX0444. Google employees openly discussed that Header Bidding was an existential threat.

Evidence suggests that Google knew Publishers wanted so badly to get out of the chokehold that they were even willing to lose some revenue in order to regain control.
See, e.g. PTX1854 – transcript of Google / Publisher partner meeting about bundle of changes: moving to 1st Price Auction, Removing First Look, UPR (April 2019)

Layser’s testimony earlier in the week, as I wrote, contained the most poignant moment in the trial thus far, outlining Google’s unfair, unilateral decisions. Her testimony, and the below excerpts illuminate the two central themes of the trial: Google’s control and the company’s conflicts of interest.

More on conflicts from Eisar Lipkovitz’s 2023 deposition:

What’s coming next

The DOJ expects to wrap up their side sometime this coming week. This is about half of the three-week timeframe they originally anticipated for this trial. It also reflects the tight ship Judge Brinkema is running.

This week, we’ll be hearing from a couple of expert witnesses, a few more industry participants, and at least four Google employees/Xooglers.

Monday: Neal Mohan, current YouTube CEO, previously on Ads business, coming over from DoubleClick
Tuesday: Nirmal Jayaram, Sr. Director, Engineering
Wednesday: Scott Spencer, Xoogler and ex-DoubleClick, former VP of Product Management
Thursday: Jonathan Bellack, Xoogler, Director of Project Management

Bellack is key to the case

It is quite possible that Bellack will be the DOJ’s closing act. That’s because Bellack is a long-time employee that had been at DoubleClick since 2004, coming over to Google with the acquisition. He served in many product management-focused roles on the sell-side, including leading the unification of DFP and AdX under GAM. His name has appeared just about daily in emails and documents entered into evidence during the examinations of Xooglers like Eisar Lipkovitz, Brad Bender, and Rahul Srinivasan. (For more on each of these folks, check out our Witness Database.)

At the end of 2022, Bellack reportedly told Google that he was looking to leave the company, after nearly 15 years. About two months later, on January 20th, 2023, he was exited. Interestingly, the DOJ’s complaint against Google was also filed in January of 2023.
He was vocal about leaving, and about the abrupt nature of his departure. As he says in his interview about his exit, he was “aggressively” compensated, and isn’t worried about money.
Bellack is involved in projects to support local journalism in his home town, and he joined the Applied Social Media Lab at Harvard after leaving Google, where he “is building a team of technologists to invent new social media approaches that center the public interest.” In the latter part of his career, he wants to be a “great helper.”

He appears unfettered by golden handcuffs, and isn’t gagged by contract. But undoubtedly, there are personal loyalties that Bellack still holds. He thanks Neal Mohan (who testifies tomorrow), saying he “never stopped fighting” for him in his blog. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, and given that he seems to be the last Xoogler the DOJ plans to call, this is one I’m awaiting eagerly.

Courtroom vibes

One of the interesting dynamics in the courtroom is how Google appears to be using one of their (many, many) defense team associates to run post-its back and forth to its comms team/spin-factory throughout the day. I’ve talked before about how control is Google’s strategy. Controlling the narrative is a big part of this.

As I watch this play out each day, I am reminded of the critical importance of journalism and public access to information to a healthy market and functioning democracy — exactly what is at stake in this very trial. It is a reminder of why we and our partners created usvgoogleads.com and created resources there to help others do their own analysis and form their own opinions. The public silence the IAB and the ANA about this trial alone speaks volumes about the power Google wields.

It is a reminder each day of why I am incredibly proud to be here on the ground, and to have the opportunity to help keep you all informed. Let’s keep all eyes on Google. The future of journalism depends on it.

The monumental stakes of the Google ad tech trial

September 11, 2024 DCN

Jason Kint, September 5^th, 2024
Capitol Forum – Antitrust Trial of the Century Conference
Remarks given at The National Press Club in Washington D.C.

Trying to compete in the advertising market with Google is a bit like trying to play poker with someone who not only knows all the cards in everyone’s hands but also gets to set the rules, deal the cards, call the bets, and take a significant cut of the winnings.

It’s hard to believe it’s been almost 10 years since we sounded the alarm at DCN. As you likely know, DCN was purpose built to advance the future for premium publishers who trust us to understand and advocate for high-quality news and entertainment.

Back then in 2014, as the digital advertising industry was booming – often growing by 15-20% per year – we noticed something disturbing. Almost all of the incremental revenue growth was being captured by just two companies: Google and Facebook. And it wasn’t just because they were simply competing better in the advertising business – it was due to unprecedented access to data, what many now rightly call surveillance advertising.

And that brings us to why we’re here today: the adtech antitrust case, United States vs. Google. Why are we so focused on this case? Because it is monumental. This case is laser-focused on Google’s dominance over the entire advertising supply chain which funds most of its operations, particularly through the software and data that fuel this real-time, live auction marketplace…

Listen to Jason Kint’s full endnote speech from Capitol Forum’s September 2024 conference on remedies and the Google ad-tech trial:

The antitrust trial of the United States v. Google

September 9, 2024 DCN

September 9, 2024 marks the start of the antitrust trial United States v. Google. This follows closely on the heels of the landmark antitrust case in which S District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google “is a monopolist and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”.

In this antitrust case, Google is accused of illegally monopolizing the $700B+ digital advertising industry by virtue of owning the dominant service for advertisers buying ads, the dominant service for publishers selling ads and the dominant exchange where bids are awarded. As the evidence will show, Google has systematically abused its dominant position through acquisitions and anticompetitive behavior to protect its monopoly, suppress competition and maintain their unique ability to collect a treasure trove of data about consumers. As a result, Google exerts outsized control over where revenue flows with dire impacts on journalism. The Department of Justice is rightly seeking to break up this monopoly in order to increase competition and innovation for advertisers, publishers and consumers.

We’ve partnered with other industry organizations to create a site that offers a wide range of resources to provide background on the case itself as well as regular trial updates. We also created an informational video in an effort to provide clarity and transparency in the digital advertising marketplace (in support of the AMERICA Act), which illustrates and explain some of the complexities in the digital advertising ecosystem that will be central to this trial.

Hear insights about the trial, what’s at stake, and what possible outcomes look like from DCN CEO, Jason Kint:

Capitol Forum | Jason Kint on the US vs. Google Antitrust Trial

Better Offline | The Department of Justice V Google Ads: Part 1

The Current | 5 Minutes with Digital Content Next’s Jason Kint

Follow Jason Kint’s X feed for daily updates on the trial

5 insights during the intermission between US v Google I and II

August 15, 2024 Jason Kint, CEO – DCN

As we approach opening arguments of Google’s landmark AdTech trial on September 9th, it is a good time to reflect on the calendar of events leading to this moment. It is useful to consider the context and critical points at play in the case against Google, particularly given last week’s search antitrust verdict.

To recap, here is the timeline to date of the four major lawsuits alleging Google engaged in monopolistic behavior:

Dec 11, 2023 | A federal jury found that Google’s app store violated antitrust law

Aug 5, 2024 | Google found to have violated antitrust law in search and search text ads

Aug 14, 2024 | Closing arguments on remedies for Google’s app store antitrust violations

Sep 6th, 2024 | Judge Mehta will begin the trial on remedies to Google’s search monopoly

Sept 9^th, 2024 Trial begins AdTech antitrust lawsuit brought by DOJ (see more info below)

March 25, 2025 | Google faces Texas court in a second AdTech antitrust lawsuit brought by state attorneys general

And here is a significant resource for those who seek a fuller picture of the upcoming Google AdTech antitrust trial:

The antitrust trial of the United States v. Google, LLC

So, as we look toward the start of the next phase in the antitrust actions against Google, here are five key considerations for media executives, journalists covering these cases, and for the general public—as this company’s anticompetitive behavior impacts almost every person online.

1. Ending Google’s innocence narratives: The abusive monopoly is confirmed

The first significant outcome of the search case is the formal acknowledgment of Google’s monopolistic status. It’s no longer a matter of debate whether Google is a monopoly. Given that the court has ruled definitively on this point, I have no idea why The Information is sending out polls asking its subscribers if Google is a monopoly. This is no longer a subject of debate.

A unanimous jury of Northern Californians last December, and now a D.C. district court judge last week, have decisively found that Google monopolizes four critical markets: general search services, search text ads, Android app distribution, and Android in-app billing. More importantly, the verdicts also found that Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain these monopolies. The wider Search verdict—a fabulous read—effectively ends any narrative of Google’s innocence and sets the stage for a broader reckoning within the tech industry.

2. Illuminating Google’s tactics: The truth shines through

The trial last Fall exposed the extent of Google’s market power and its aggressive, if not illegal, tactics. Under oath, former Google employees (often referred to as “Xooglers”), partners, and even current employees provided testimony that has shed light on the company’s practices.

Discovery in these cases has revealed much about Google’s internal operations, with documents and testimony uncovering the strategies Google used to maintain its dominance to maximize its benefits. These revelations are crucial not only for the legal proceedings but also for broader public understanding of how big tech companies operate behind closed doors.

3. A matter of public interest: The stakes for media and society

The implications of these cases extend far beyond Google’s corporate interests. Google is not just a search company. It is not just a tech giant. Google is the single largest distributor of news and entertainment—as well as the advertising dollars that sustain these industries. With annual revenues nearing $300 billion, the company’s influence over the media landscape is immense.

Taken together—Google AdTech case, along with the Search verdict—arguably mark the most significant antitrust action affecting the media industry in a half-century. The outcome will have profound implications for how information and advertising are distributed in the digital age. Yet, despite the critical nature of this case, there has been a surprising lack of press coverage and public awareness about the evidence presented.

Let me try to illustrate not only why the AdTech trial matters, but why it is a story the public needs to hear:

What if I told you the heads of Chrome, Android, and AdTech divisions collaborated via email to maximize ad revenues to hit their quarterly targets?

What if I told you Google’s advertising auctions weren’t always second-price auctions, but that publishers were at times secretly paid the third price while Google pocketed the difference?

And what if the auction bids included another arbitrary, secretive variable determined unilaterally by Google?

What if I told you Google exerted its outsized influence on the very shape of the media ecosystem based on the position that subscription news sites were a threat to the open web?

What if I told you Google’s notorious “Jedi Blue” deal with Facebook is still a part of the evidence in this case and that the key Meta employee who briefed Mark Zuckerberg ahead of his meeting with Sundar Pichai will be testifying this September?

These cases impact almost every searcher’s ability to access news, entertainment and information. If those stakes aren’t high enough, the cast of players and the Machiavellian twists make for compelling storytelling. The public needs to know.

4. Converging lawsuits: A unified attack on anticompetitive practices

The lawsuits against Google, though focusing on different aspects of the company’s operations— app store, search and AdTech—share common themes. Judges have noted that Google allowed employee messages to be purged by default, despite ongoing litigation holds, and manipulated auctions to impact revenues. These findings indicate a pattern of behavior that transcends individual cases. It points to a systematic approach to maintaining its monopoly power.

The convergence of these lawsuits highlights the interconnected nature of Google’s business practices and the data and queries at scale serving as the core of its business model. It’s becoming increasingly clear that any meaningful remedy must address the chokepoints of Google’s operations that feed the data and query scale. Doing so should also open opportunities for new entrants in the emerging field of generative AI.

5. Remedies on the horizon: structural changes loom large

The future of the media industry will be on display in federal court rooms on both sides of the Potomac next month. As the separate remedies trial for the search case gets underway in the DC district court and the AdTech trial starts in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), discussions about potential remedies have begun to surface.

While short-term solutions, such as prohibiting Google’s commercial deals to serve as the default search engine on browsers and operating systems, are being considered, it’s evident that more substantial structural remedies will be necessary. The prosecuting teams, under the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, seem to understand the intricacies of Google’s business model just as well as industry insiders. Without structural changes—such as breaking up Google’s control over key gatekeeping assets like Chrome, Android, YouTube, and its AdTech supply chain and data. it will be impossible to mitigate Google’s monopolistic practices in the long term.

The idea of “Baby Googles,” or the division of Google into smaller, independent entities, is not just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a very real possibility that could reshape the tech and media industry.

The future of Big Tech and the free market

The second verdict against Google marks a turning point in the battle against monopolistic practices in the tech industry. The outcomes of these legal battles will not only impact Google but will also set precedents for how other tech giants like Apple, Amazon, and Meta—all currently being sued by either the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission or both—are regulated in the future.

But it is important to remember that this isn’t just about setting the tone for Big Tech regulation. It is about the underlying motivation behind these cases; the very reason America has antitrust laws in place and a framework to enforce them. As DOJ antitrust chief Kanter framed it in an interview on CNBC, actions like these are particularly critical during times of technological change. As AI is poised to reshape search—and impact industries of all kinds—ensuring that the marketplace is a healthy one, where competition and innovation flourish, takes on paramount importance.

“As we sit here at the next technological inflection point,” Kanter said, “it’s extremely important that we protect the competitive process to make sure that the benefits of technological innovation, the excitement that we’re all feeling from AI… can reach consumers in a fully competitive way.”

It looks like the era of unchecked dominance by a few tech behemoths may be coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for the entire digital economy.