Allegations of Market Dominance

The Canada Competition Bureau has accused Google of linking two advertising tools illegally in order to maintain its dominance in the search market. In a statement released by the antitrust watchdog, Google allegedly used its market supremacy to influence ad auctions by prioritizing its own tools.

The Competition Bureau said its investigations found that being the largest ad tech stack in the country, Google had abused its market supremacy.

“Through a series of calculated decisions, taken over the course of multiple years, Google has excluded competitors and entrenched itself at the center of online advertising. Google’s near-total control of the ad-tech [software] is a function of premeditated design and conduct, rather than superior competitive performance or happenstance,” the Competition Watchdog said in its notice.

Push for Ad Tech Sell-Off

Canada’s Google antitrust case revolves around online advertisements. These are the ads displayed to users when they visit different websites. The case also touches on Google’s digital ad inventory. This is the space that website publishers avail for sale.

Ad inventories are purchased and sold via automated auctions on digital platforms. These platforms are referred to as ad tech tools. All the tools used in the ad buying process are known as ad tech stacks.

The Competition Bureau said it had filed a complaint with Canada’s court-like body, the Competition Tribunal. In its complaint, the Bureaus seeks to compel Google to sell off two of its ad technology tools. The competition regulator also wants the Tribunal to force the search giant to pay a fine equivalent to 3% of its global revenue to enhance its compliance with the country’s competition laws.

Google’s Response

Reacting to the move taken by the Google online ad monopoly lawsuit, Google said the complaint ignored the fierce competition environment that gives media buyers and sellers many choices. The search giant says it looks forward to arguing its case in court.

“Our advertising technology tools help websites and apps fund their content, and enable businesses of all sizes to effectively reach new customers,” Google’s VP for Global Advertising, Dan Taylor said.

Google’s antitrust lawsuit in Canada comes just a week after the US Department of Justice recommended the sale of Chrome as one of the ways of reducing its online search dominance. Chrome is the most preferred web browser in the world. Google is also facing trial for its ad technology system in the US after the DoJ filed an antitrust case against the search giant. In this case, the DoJ claims that the technology causes harm to news publishers.

Google must file a formal response with the Canadian Competition Tribunal within 45 days.

The post Canada Sues Google, Demands Ad Tech Sell-Off in New Antitrust Case appeared first on Tech Research Online.

An Orchestrated Boycott

The press release by the attorney general’s office did not state which social media platforms had been boycotted by members of the WFA. But Elon Musk’s X platform is among those that was hit by the boycott. In August 2024, X filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging the association orchestrated an illegal boycott of the platform.

Numerous WFA members either reduced their advertising spend on X or halted it completely as soon as Elon Musk took over the social media platform. The companies included global brands like Coca Cola, IBM, and CVS Health.

“Trade organizations and companies cannot collude to block advertising revenue from entities they wish to undermine. Today’s document request is part of an ongoing investigation to hold WFA and its members accountable for any attempt to rig the system to harm organizations they might disagree with,” Paxton said.

Reports that X had failed to moderate the platform by removing hateful or illegal content had further exacerbated the situation. The reports were published by Media Matters and the Center for Countering Digital Hate in November 2023. These reports triggered a massive exodus of advertisers that saw top brands like Disney and Apple quit the X platform.

Legal Action

Since 2023, X has been taking legal action against numerous advertising groups and brands. The Elon Musk lawsuit, X argues that the brands did not reduce their ad spend on the platform based individual decisions.

Rather, the brands conspired to collectively withhold revenue amounting to billions from X. Texas’ attorney general office is now commencing its own investigation to ascertain these allegations. Responding to Paxton’s statement regarding the advertiser investigation, Elon Musk said the issue still persists.

Just like the lawsuit filed by X, the Texas AG will be investigating a not-for-profit within the WFA that has since ceased operations. This is the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM). The not-for-profit entity had been founded in 2019 and featured some of the biggest advertisers in the US.

The Search for Evidence

GARM had developed frameworks to help brands understand brand safety, hate speech, and misinformation. As the Texas AG investigates the matter, he will be keen to review the information and documents from GARM. The AG will be checking for evidence on whether GARM advised brands to boycott social media platforms that violated its brand safety standards.

Announcing the lawsuit filed by X against advertisers, the platform CEO, Linda Yaccarino had cited a July 2024 report by Judiciary Committee in the US House of Representatives regarding GARM’s practices.

“Through GARM, large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members. This collusion can have the effect of eliminating a variety of content and viewpoints available to consumers,” The Report read in part.

GARM closed soon after X filed its lawsuit in August 2024. The not-for-profit cited financial challenges as the reason for the closure. In recent months, some brands like Comcast, Disney, and IBM have started running ads on X. However, their ad spend is much lower than before.

The social media giant has been engaging brands to address the X advertising issues. Last month, the platform announced that Unilever had agreed to resume advertising on the platform. Previously, X had released names of brands that participated in the illegal boycott. As part of the agreement, the social media platform will be dropping this claim against Unilever.

The post Boost for Elon Musk As Texas AG Announces Plans to Investigate X Advertising Boycott appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to Reuters, the search engine giant rested its case on September 27. Google will present its closing arguments on November 25 with the ruling expected within months.

Ad Technology Trial

Google’s ad tech antitrust case commenced on September 9, about a month after a US judge ruled that the tech giant is an illegal monopoly. Google said it would appeal this ruling even as the US Department of Justice (DoJ) prepares to propose legal remedies in court in the coming months.

The DoJ took on the tech giant’s ad monetization system in the ad tech trial. The justice department argued that the system harms advertisers and news publishers. Google’s ad technology trial forced the tech company to justify competitiveness in the advertising space and demonstrate to the court that its technology is not an illegal competition.

Last week, Google sought to counter DoJ’s allegations, arguing that its technologies provide publishers and advertisers a safe ecosystem with the tools they need to transact in a highly competitive digital advertising environment.

Business Implications

Analysts say that Google’s adtech trial may not be as heavy as the search case that led to a federal judge terming the search engine giant an illegal monopoly. This means the impact of the ad tech trial on the business could be minimal.

“The search case is the one that has the meat in terms of how much it could affect the business. This case is more headline,” Wedbush Analyst, Scott Devitt said.

DoJ’s case focused more on Google Network. This is the business wing that manages Google’s ad action that advertisers use to buy digital ad space. Google acknowledged financial interest in its advertising business.

“Google is never going to tell this court that it is not a big company and that these investments and innovations have not been in its financial interest. They have been. We are one big company among many others, intensely competing on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis for every single ad impression,” Google’s Lead Lawyer Karen Dunn said.

Google’s advertising business accounted for over 75% of the company’s $307 billion total revenue in 2023.

Damaging Testimony

Although some analysts think that the ad tech case could have minimal impact on Google’s business, others feel the Google trial could be a win or lose.

“I think the DOJ has the edge and a finding of liability is more likely than not,” Bloomberg Intelligence Analyst, Justin Teresi said.

The court heard testimonies that could push the outcome in DoJ’s favor. For instance, the court heard how Google’s former president of display advertising, David Rosenblatt had told employees back in 2009 that the company’s goal was to crush rival ad networks.

“We’ll be able to crush the other networks and that’s our goal. Google has created what’s comparable to the NYSE or London Stock Exchange; in other words, we’ll do to display what Google did to search,” Rosenblatt said.

During questioning by the DoJ, Scott Sheffer, Google’s VP for Global Partnerships admitted that AdX and AdSense platforms do not allow publishers and advertisers the like when publishers use Google’s ad server.

Google maintained that the tech giant integrates products to reduce fraud and ad spam and fraud. The company argued that opening its tools to rivals could make it easy for customers to circumvent the system and stifle innovation. The company also said that US laws protect its right to decide whether to make its advertising technology work for others.

The post Mixed Expectations on Google Ad Tech Trial Outcome as Hearing Closes appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to Marketing Drive, Amazon’s video generator serves as an affordable top-of-funnel channel for small and medium-sized businesses.

Video Generation Process

Amazon says that marketers on the Sponsored Brands platform have to submit product pages to access the video generator. Once the page is submitted, marketers have to select the AI-generated video option on the drop-down menu.

The tool generates and displays several video options for marketers to choose and edit based on their needs. Amazon showcased the video generator at work during the Accelerate Event.
Using a pre-recorded demo, the e-commerce company displayed a lavender-scented lotion image being placed in the video generator.

The tool generated ads with sprawling flower fields and text to highlight the qualities of the product was added to the video. Amazon said that availability of video generator tools is restricted at this time. Its live image capabilities are also limited. However, the company is committed to fine-tuning the AI technology using user feedback.

Journey to Generative AI

Amazon’s journey to develop generative AI solutions for advertisers started last fall when it unveiled its AI image generator. The tool was used by Appliance manufacturer, Whirlpool in its holiday marketing campaign in 2023. The company reported significant results from the campaign, including over 2 million impressions and a 2% click-through rate.

By extending the idea to video generation, Amazon is looking to maximize advertising spend for businesses by boosting their top-of-funnel results. Big tech companies like Meta, have also entered the generative AI space in recent years. On September 23, Google Ads rolled out a video enhancement feature to boost video ad performance even as its advertising technology remains the focus of its ongoing antitrust trial.

With its new AI-powered video generator, Amazon is looking to boost revenue performance for its ad segment. In its quarter two results, the e-commerce reported a 20% revenue growth in this segment but still fell below Wall Street’s estimates.

A Tested Solution

The video generator produces fairly basic videos using available product images. However, Amazon anticipates that the single click aspect that leverages the Sponsored Brands platform and comes at no cost will attract businesses.

French skincare company, Gellé Frères has been testing the new solution as part of its Amazon AI powered holiday marketing campaign. A spokesperson from the company has termed Amazon’s AI-powered video generator as effective in reducing the time that businesses spend producing video ads.

The company also said that the new tool has paved the way for it to advertise more of its products.

The post Amazon Unveils AI-Powered Video Ad Generator to Boost Ad Segment Revenue appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Google’s win in the EU antitrust fight comes when the tech giant is undergoing an antitrust trial in the US.

According to CNBC, the fine imposed on Google by the European Commission was a result of a 2019 case where Google was accused of abusing its market dominance through its product, AdSense for Search. Website owners use AdSense for Search to place ads on their web pages. The product allows users to optimize their websites for Google searches and ads to generate more revenue.

Restrictive Clauses

Google argued that it is an intermediary that lets advertisers place search ads on third-party websites.

The Commission had accused the search giant of abusing market dominance by imposing several clauses in its contracts with third-party websites. These clauses kept Google’s competitors from placing search ads on third-party websites.

The Commission fined Google $1.7 billion based on these claims, and the search giant filed an appeal against this ruling at the EU General Court.

Court Reasoning

On Wednesday, September 18, the EU General Court said that it upheld most of the findings that formed the basis of the ruling by the Commission. However, the court annulled the decision to impose the $1.7 billion fine on Google saying the Commission’s decision did not consider all relevant circumstances in assessing the contract clauses that it claimed were abusive.

“The Commission has also not demonstrated that the clauses in question had, first, possibly deterred innovation, next, helped Google to maintain and strengthen its dominant position on the national markets for online search advertising at issue and, last, that they had possibly harmed consumers,” Judges said.

Google expressed satisfaction with the ruling issued by EU’s second-highest court and said it will review it fully.

“This case concerns a very narrow subset of text-only search ads placed on a limited number of publishers’ websites. We made changes to our contracts in 2016 to remove the relevant provisions, even before the Commission’s decision. We are pleased that the court has recognized errors in the original decision and annulled the fine,” Google’s spokesperson said.

Possible Appeal

The EU Commission may decide to appeal the court’s ruling at the European Court of Justice. Several cases involving big tech companies in Europe and in the U.S. have concluded.

On September 10, Europe’s highest court upheld the $2.65 billion fine that the EU Commission imposed on Google for favoring its shopping comparison service. Review website Yelp has also sued Google over illegal monopoly in local search. Google’s ad technology is on the spot in an antitrust trial that commenced on September 9 in the US.

Last month, the tech giant faced a huge setback after a US court ruled that it is an illegal monopoly.

The post Relief as Google Wins EU Antitrust Fight Over Ads appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to Reuters, the US antitrust trial is part of the US government’s efforts to rein in large technology companies through antitrust laws. The case comes barely a month after the DoJ secured a groundbreaking ruling after a federal Judge found Google guilty of running an illegal monopoly.

Google’s Ad Technology

Initially, the US antitrust trial on Google focused on the company’s universal search engine. In the upcoming trial, Google’s digital ad business will be targeted. The focus will be on Google’s advertising tools, specifically the technology it uses to connect websites, publishers, and advertisers.

In the trial, the DoJ will be seeking to demonstrate that Google broke the law in its digital ad business.

“Google is far and away the largest seller of advertising on earth. They touch every part of the industry, if not directly, then indirectly. Everyone has an interest in Google one way or another,” Financial Analyst and Advertising Consultant, Brian Wieser said.

A win for DoJ in the trial will set the stage for the state to ask the District Judge to order Google’s breakup. Last year, advertising tools earned the search giant over 75% of the $307.4 billion revenue it generated through advertising.

Market Dominance

US regulators have accused Google of market dominance due to the technology it uses to power website ads.

The DoJ alleges that the search giant has 91% control of the ad server market where publishers sell ad space. The regulator also alleges that Google controls 50% of the ad exchange market and 85% of the ad networks marketers which advertisers rely on to place ads.

But Google says it only controls 30% or less of these markets when advertising on streaming TV, apps, and social media is included. The company argues that DoJ’s focus on web ads obscures the stiff competition it faces as other categories grow.

The tech giant has also been accused of lumping advertisers and publishers together, placing itself in a privileged middleman position. Last week, review website Yelp sued Google for monopolizing local search. Yelp accused Google of prioritizing its reviews over those of competitors in search rankings.

Google argues that it’s not required to share its tech advantage with competitors. It also says that its tech products are interoperable with those that its competitors use.

Impact on News Outlets

The upcoming Google antitrust trial will also focus on the impact of Google’s ad technology on news companies.

Speaking at an event back in June, DoJ’s Antitrust Chief, Jonathan Kanter said, “Journalism is under threat in large part due to consolidation in the advertising market.”

The DoJ has lined up several news outlets to testify in the trial. They include executives from the Daily Mail, News Corp, and Gannett.

Google plans to call some of the publishers and small businesses it focuses on to testify in the trial. The company says a breakup will increase advertising fees, slow innovation, and make it difficult for small businesses to grow.

The post Google Advertising Technology on the Spot in New Antitrust Trial appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to Yahoo Finance, the online review site alleges that Google has an unfair advantage in the local search market and advertising.

Anticompetitive Conduct

Yelp has considered Google’s conduct as anticompetitive for over a decade now. The California-based firm has been striving to compete with Google in local search and advertising by developing detailed reviews of local businesses like beauty parlors and restaurants.

The timing of the Yelp Google antitrust legal suit suggests that more businesses may take action against the search giant in the coming months. Besides businesses, government agencies have stepped up antitrust probes against big tech companies. In June this year, US agencies agreed to commence probes on OpenAI, Microsoft, and Nvidia.

Speaking in an interview, Aaron Schur, Yelp’s General Counsel said that Yelp drew from Google’s antitrust case ruling earlier this month to demonstrate that the tech giant used its monopoly power to dominate other spaces.

“Our case is asserting that Google has abused that illegal monopoly in general search that has already been decided by Judge Mehta, and it’s using that monopoly to self-preference that inferior content in the adjacent market of local search and also the local search advertising market,” Schur said.

Self-Preferencing

Yelp’s lawsuit is about stopping Google from prioritizing its reviews above those of competitors. The lawsuit outlines how Google sought to get users off its search page and onto the web fast. This move led to the creation of thriving ecosystems like Yelp that provided consumers with the information they were seeking.

However, Google decided to enter into this market when it noticed how lucrative it was to help users find which pizza to order or which handyman to hire.

“First and foremost we want Google to end its unlawful self-preferencing- which hurts consumers, hurts competition, and hurts the businesses that pay for local search advertising. That is really what we are focused on in this case,” Schur said.

In a statement released by Google’s spokesperson, the tech giant said it will mount a vigorous defense against Yelp’s allegations that the company considers to lack merit. Google says that Yelp’s claims are not new and that similar allegations had been dismissed by the Federal Trade Commission a few years ago.

A Long Battle

Yelp has been accusing Google of monopolizing the internet search market in the US and the EU for several years now. Specifically, the online review company has been accusing Google of using its dominance to place its reviews higher than those of rivals on search results.

In the wake of the landmark antitrust ruling, the US Department of Justice is considering pursuing a forceful break up of the tech giant. If this happens, this will be the first push to break up a company for illegal monopolization in two decades after efforts to split Microsoft failed. A forceful breakup of the tech giant would be the largest in the US since the 1980’s when AT&T was dismantled.

The DoJ may opt for a less severe option like requiring the tech giant to share data with rivals or eliminating its default status in mobile devices.

The post Yelp Sues Google for Self-Preferencing Customer Reviews appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to CNBC, the company will start selling ads while generating AI-assisted search results for users.

AI-Assisted Search

Perplexity specializes in providing AI-supported search. This strategy allows it to increase usage and promotes the app to increase reach. In April this year, the AI startup raised funds that doubled its valuation to over $1 billion.

According to Perplexity, the AI search app has been downloaded over 2 million times. It responds to more than 230 million queries each month. In the past year, queries from US users have increased eight times.

Content Concerns

Perplexity’s popularity has raised concerns about how it searches and presents content from other sources. In June this year, Forbes reported that Perplexity had plagiarized its content.

Forbes said it found one of its stories on the app with no reference except a tiny ‘F’ logo at the end of the page. A few weeks later, Wired raised a similar concern. The media outlet said it had evidence that Perplexity was plagiarizing its stories.

Following the allegations, Perplexity adjusted the way it cites sources and made updates to ensure responses cite media outlets directly in generated content.

Revenue Program

Perplexity introduced a revenue-sharing model last month. This model allows publishers to earn money when they use its search engine. The company says every time a user asks a question on its app, and Perplexity gets AI-assisted search ad revenue for citing articles in its answer, a percentage of that revenue will be shared with the publisher.

Content platforms and media outlets like Entrepreneur, Fortune, Der Spiegel, The Texas Tribune, and Time were among the first to sign up for Perplexity’s Publishers Program. Back in July, Perplexity’s Chief Business Officer Dmitry Shevelenko said publishers would receive triple the revenue share if three of their articles appeared in a single answer.

The company’s goal is to enroll at least 30 publishers by the end of 2024.

Perplexity AI ads will leverage the cost per thousand impressions (CPM) model with prices surpassing the $50 mark. In its pitch deck, Perplexity plans to focus on a range of ad categories. These include health, tech, art, finance, pharmaceuticals, entertainment, and food and beverage.

Advertisers can sponsor related queries below the search responses and purchase display ads. Perplexity says 80% of its users have undergraduate degrees, 65% are high-income professionals, and 30% hold senior leadership positions.

The post AI Startup Perplexity Unveils Plans to Sell Ads appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Reuters reported that earlier this year, Meta committed to restricting its use of ad customer data to keep it from gaining an unfair advantage.

Wide Consultation

For the Competition and Markets Authority, the decision to accept Meta’s UK ad data rules change wasn’t a direct one. The competition watchdog said it consulted interested parties on the proposals before making the decision.

“Having consulted advertisers and Facebook Marketplace users on the proposals, the CMA has concluded that the revisions go above and beyond the original commitments and would not leave any advertisers worse off. As a result, the CMA has accepted the proposed variation,” the watchdog said.

According to the Competition and Markets Authority, Meta has committed to allow advertisers to post ads on its Facebook marketplace. Meta will also allow advertisers to click an ‘opt out’ button on its platform if they don’t want the company to use it’s their data to improve its social platforms.

Opt-Out Option

The authority first launched investigations into Meta’s customer data usage in 2021. In its investigation, the CMA was checking whether Meat was having an unfair advantage over its competitors because of the way it collects and uses customer data.

In the proposed Meta ad data rules changes, the big tech has ensured that advertiser data from its Facebook platform will not be used without customer consent.

“The CMA has concluded that the revisions go above and beyond the original commitments and would not leave any advertisers worse off. As a result, the CMA has accepted the proposed variation,” the Authority added.

Meta isn’t the only big tech company that has committed not to use marketplace data from competitors. In 2023, Amazon.com committed to do the same to ensure a level playing field for its customers.

Multiple Lawsuits

Meta has been contending with data privacy lawsuits for several years now. Last month, a Court instructed the social media giant to make a $1.4 billion settlement in the Meta facial recognition lawsuit. Meta had been accused of capturing and using biometric data from millions of Texas residents without consent.

Meta has also been sued in 11 European countries following claims that the tech company will use personal data to train AI under its new privacy policy.

The post UK Regulator Validates Meta’s Ad Data Proposals appeared first on Tech Research Online.

Bloomberg reported that following the Google monopoly ruling, attorneys in the Justice Department are now considering several options to propose to the court in the coming month.

Multiple Remedies

The remedies being considered by the DoJ include an outright breakup of Google. If adopted, this option will force the giant tech company to make its search engine data accessible to competitors. Another proposal involves terminating agreements that make Google search engine a default on internet browsers and mobile devices.

“I think it’s going to be more complicated coming up with injunctive relief than it was finding the liability,” Antitrust Attorney Carl Hittinger said.

Google and the DoJ must submit proposed options or any other changes to Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled on the Google antitrust case, by September 4, two days before the scheduled hearing of the next steps.

Google’s Appeal

Legal experts suggest that the remedies prosecutors propose will either alter the online search market or have minimal impact depending on what happens in the coming months.

Google plans to appeal Judge Mehta’s ruling at the District of Columbia’s Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 4, Google’s defense attorneys could ask the Judge to suspend any orders as it appeals the ruling.

“We’ve passed a key milestone, but there’s still a lot of history to be written,” a spokesman for DuckDuckGo said in a statement.

If the Court Appeal rules that Google hasn’t broken the law, Judge Mehta will lose the right to impose remedies. But if Google is found guilty and an order to adjust its behavior is issued, the judge could adjust his orders to restore competition.

Impact of A Google Split

A decision to split the tech giant after the Google monopoly lawsuit would reverberate across the tech universe, including the divestitures of its Chrome browser, the Android operating system, and the AdWords platform that steer users into Google search.

Changes to any of these solutions would affect Google’s revenue stream and deny it the data that fuels its broad advertising and search ecosystem. Legal experts say it’s highly unlikely the Judge will opt for this option, he must pick a remedy that serves the interest of the public.

“You can’t just yank the rug out from under the American public that’s been using Google’s service, now ingrained in our culture, without a substitute. Unless other competitors have a platform that is the same or better than Google, what’s the public supposed to use in the meantime?” Hittinger said.

Possible Scenarios

Hittinger expects Judge Mehta to craft a remedy comparable to Xerox’s when it dominated the office copier market in 1975. The courts compelled Xerox to open its ecosystem and allow third- party components like ink cartridge suppliers to run on its machines.

But former attorney general at DoJ’s antitrust division, Bill Baer holds a different view. He sees Judge Mehta asking Google to divest Chrome or Android.

“The judge, in order to make this remedy meaningful, is going to have to do something that allows competition to flourish. Because they’re a monopolist, they charge the advertisers, who in turn charge us, a whole lot more than if the market were competitive,” he said.

Google’s rival, DuckDuckGo hopes Judge Mahta will compel Google to make search data accessible to competitors and allow users to pick their preferred search engine. Search engines rely on search data to keep tabs on what users search and how they navigate websites.

Google continues to monitor user activities after it dropped plans to drop third-party cookies last month. Accessing search data will enable DuckDuckGo and other search engines to compete against Google.

The post What’s Next for Google After Monopoly Ruling? appeared first on Tech Research Online.

The New York Times reported that X sued the advertisers for conspiring to boycott the platform unlawfully, leading to revenue losses. The X advertisers boycott lawsuit was filed in a federal court in Texas’ Northern District.

Conservatives who file lawsuits to block policies advanced by the Biden administration prefer to do so in this District. The respondents in the case include the World Federation of Advertisers, the Mars group, and Orsted, Unilever, and CVS Health.

Revenue Losses

In the lawsuit, X claims that through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, the World Federation of Advertisers withheld revenue amounting to billions of dollars from X.

The social media platform claims the advertisers acted on their own economic self-interests and that their conspiracy violates the U.S. antitrust law.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Linda Yaccarino, Chief Executive at X said, “People are hurt when the marketplace of ideas is constricted.”

X experienced a slump in ad revenue for several months after Elon Musk acquired the company in 2022. Some advertisers became wary of spending on ads under MusK because they feared their brands would be featured near harmful content, which under previous owners, was a ground for removal.

High Threshold

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media was launched in 2019 to help advertisers overcome the challenge of harmful or illegal content on digital media platforms.

According to University of Bufallo Professor and Antitrust Expert, Christine Bartholomew, the burden of proof in advertising boycott lawsuits that allege unlawful actions is very high. X must prove that there was a real agreement to boycott its platform that each advertiser was party to.

Meeting this requirement can be challenging when such an agreement is not explicit. Additionally, X cannot force advertisers to spend on its platform even if it succeeded in the current lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, X claims that it applies brand-safety standards similar to those that its competitors use and that are in line with the measures that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media specified. Besides X, the World Federation of Advertisers was also sued by Rumber, the video sharing company.

Financial Challenges

The World Federation of Advertisers denied that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media violated the U.S. antitrust law. However, it said the organization lacked financial resources to sustain operations as it battles the X lawsuit.

“I am confident that the outcome will demonstrate our full adherence to competition rules in all our activities,” Word Federation of Advertisers Chief Executive, Stephan Loerke said in an email.

News of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media closure was celebrated at X.

“No small group should be able to monopolize what gets monetized. This is an important acknowledgment and a necessary step in the right direction. I am hopeful that it means ecosystem-wide reform is coming,” Yaccarino said in a post.

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media closed operations immediately. However, the World Federation of Advertisers will maintain operations.

The post Global Advertiser Group Shuts Down After X Ad Boycott Lawsuit appeared first on Tech Research Online.

According to Yahoo Finance, the judgment came close to a year after the trial that pitted the U.S. Department of Justice against Google.

A Ten Week Trial

Google’s internet search monopoly trial took 10 weeks. It involved an intensive review of huge volumes of evidence and testimonies from top big tech executives including Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Judge Mehta made a ruling three months after closing submissions by both sides.

“After having carefully considered and weighed the witness testimony and evidence, the court reaches the following conclusion: Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his ruling.

The Judge also said Google’s dominance in the search market is evidence of its monopoly.

“Google enjoys an 89.2% share of the market for general search services, which increases to 94.9% on mobile devices,” the Judge added.

Second Time Guilty

This is the second time a judge or jury has declared Google an illegal monopoly. The first time this happened was in a case that focused on how Google runs the Android app store.

According to the Google antitrust case ruling, the search giant spent billions of dollars to establish an illegal monopoly and became the world’s default search engine. The ruling is the first huge win for federal agencies taking on market dominance by Big Techs.

The ruling is a major setback for the tech giant and its parent company, Alphabet. Google’s Global Affairs President, Kent Walker said the company will be appealing the ruling.

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker said.

The ruling vindicates US antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice. The DoJ filed the lawsuit about four years ago and has been escalating it in a bid to rein in Big Tech.

“This victory against Google is a historic win for the American people. No company, no matter how large or influential, is above the law. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously enforce our antitrust laws,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Impact on Advertising

With this ruling out of the way, the next step is to imagine a future where Google isn’t the way we know. This will involve evaluating legal fixes to undo Google’s behavior. A second trial to determine potential fixes will be coming up.

The ruling did not provide remedies. These will be decided separately after the appeal. One of the remedies could mean the loss of the ability to strike device deals by Google. Device deals helped the search engine become universal.

“There are no fines or monetary penalties in these types of cases, but the court will have to decide whether Google should be broken up in some way. More likely, it will order Google to eliminate the exclusive contracts and licensing restrictions that have reinforced its monopoly position for years,” Spencer Weber Waller, Law Professor at Loyola University Chicago said.

The other possible remedy is a split of Google’s parent company, Alphabet. Should this happen, it will alter the digital advertising landscape that Google has dominated for years.

The post What Google’s Antitrust Ruling Means for Digital Advertising appeared first on Tech Research Online.