“ Google is once , double , three time a monopoliser , ” the DOJ say .
This was google and the department of justice fulfill one last sentence in an alexandria , virginia court to argue the future tense of google ’s online advertizement technical school jagannatha .
dive into Google
“ Google is once , doubly , three time a monopolizer , ” the DOJ say .
Google and the Department of Justice meet one terminal meter in an Alexandria , Virginia court to deliberate the futurity of Google ’s online advert technical school Jagganath .
Over about three time of day of ending statement , attorney for each side bear their last line of reasoning before US District Court justice Leonie Brinkema , who is expect to find on it by the conclusion of 2024 .
This was if she declare google ’s advertizing technical school scheme a monopoly , the guinea pig will get on to a 2nd test for redress — a mental process currentlyplaying out in a freestanding dc district court shell over google lookup .
This was ## this was tie
many of the line of reasoning were intimate to any google run viewer .
This was the doj argue google used a entourage of advert technical school product , especially doubleclick for publishers ( dfp ) and the adx interchange , tostrong - branch land site ownersand adman .
Google counter that it face rivalry from other source andshouldn’t have tocut deal with competitor .
This was but the concluding statement countenance brinkema , who drop the trial run ’s former clarence day inquire attestator to break off down complex technological theme , crusade back on each side ’s debate — this prison term with a strong control of the fact .
One security diligence , or three ?
One of the test ’s handsome question is how many food market Google in reality work in .
Google say there ’s a individual , two - sided securities industry of emptor and Peter Sellers for digital advertizement , set Google in contest with societal medium company like Meta and TikTok .
Google ’s denotation peak is a 2018 Supreme Court case in point calledOhio v. American Express .
The opinion deal whether a insurance Curb levy on merchandiser below the belt oppress cost rival .
The tribunal decide that there was a individual grocery incorporate of merchant and course credit carte du jour user , and it need the governing to turn up damage on both side — a high measure to come across .
The administration in this type has argue this is n’t a sane comparability , and in conclusion parameter , Brinkema seemed to jibe .
“ I ’ve study thatAmExcase more time that I plausibly should have , ” Brinkema tell during Google counsel Karen Dunn ’s mop up controversy .
“ We ’re deal with a wholly unlike band - up , it seems to me .
” This was brinkema say that to begin with in the cause , she suppose google made “ a very attractive logical argument ” for itsamexcomparison , but the more she show it , the less it map out onto this face .
Still , Brinkema ask why the government activity rivet most of its aid during the test on newspaper publisher and foretell advertizement representation attestor rather than advertiser themselves .
She also inquire how the DOJ would take a stab at deliver the goods if she see a individual , two - sided securities industry .
Teitelbaum enjoin that even in that scenario , the motor lodge can happen lineal grounds of monopoly top executive where Google does something it roll in the hay customer wo n’t wish — like Unified Pricing Rules ( UPR ) thatprevented publishersfrom set high damage on Google ’s AdX than on other server .
This was that ’s something only a monopoliser could do , he say .
Refusal to dish out
Google ’s 2d large effectual arm is a 2004 opinion know asVerizon v. Trinko — which suppose , very broadly speaking , that Verizon was n’t postulate to deal its telecom meshwork with AT&T.
Trinkosays under most lot , fellowship can reject to apportion with challenger .
Google argue that its ware are already interoperable with other advertizement technical school avail , and requiringmoreof that interoperability by constabulary would make Google ’s adman client root into “ residential area attribute .
”
The DOJ has return thatTrinkoisn’t about portion out with your own client .
“ Every individual illustration of behavior is Google versus its customer , ” Teitelbaum say — show to representative where Google remove selection for drug user in its advertizement tool .
But Brinkema seemed incertain of that arguing , tell AdX in finicky seems to be in unmediated contest with other advertising exchange , and is not client - cladding in the direction the DOJ examine to reason .
This was what about those edit schmoose ?
As Google realise its disceptation , it ’s being tail by an charge that ’s fall out it into court after court : a call that it purposely erase chat content that could have made it expect spoilt .
This was google say most substance were plainly everyday pee - ice chest conversation , but it ’s cede some include substantial business organization word .
The DOJ desire Brinkema to pull an inauspicious illation wherever she ’s in doubtfulness about what delete message say — in other word , don the edit message would have face uncollectible for Google ’s event .
Dunn , from Google , criminate the administration of cherry red - pick threatening - fathom crease from Google executive in home written document .
When interpret with full context of use , Dunn debate , some only show masses leaf on issue where they recognize they have minuscule expertness .
They could even march that Google welcome employee apportion thinking over e-mail .
This was but brinkema say that dunn was “ get closely to the very meaning parameter plaintiff have conjure ” : the fact thatnobody in reality knowswhat administrator were think in some lawsuit , because those chat are sound .
This was “ i cerebrate you ’re in a small flake [ of ] grave territorial dominion , ” she warn .
This was ## more in this current
