Not Checked
Breaking up (Google) is hard to do
US

Ending a relationship with Google is a challenging task

Google's ad tech breakup faces major challenges

Google defends its ad business in court, claiming a breakup would be complicated and disruptive. The DOJ argues for structural changes to prevent monopolistic practices. The judge shows mixed responses regarding necessary remedies.

  • Google defends ad tech monopoly
  • DOJ pushes for structural remedies
  • Judge's signals are unclear
  • Experts cite technical complexities
  • Google offers limited concessions
  • Concerns about future monopolistic practices

In a recent court case, Google is attempting to keep its ad tech business intact while facing a challenge from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to break up its monopoly. Witnesses for Google argue that splitting the company would be extremely difficult, likening it to monumental tasks like traveling to Mars.

Complications in breaking up Google’s ad tech

Google’s defense team presented numerous witnesses to illustrate the complexities involved in separating its ad services, claiming it would harm customers and create new issues. One expert noted that even simpler technical aspects would be incredibly challenging, stating, “Going to the moon is simpler than going to Mars.”

While the DOJ argues that divesting parts of Google’s business is essential to restore competition, Google insists that it does not need to relinquish its monopoly power as long as it avoids unfair practices. The judge’s reactions have indicated uncertainty about potential remedies.

Google’s limited willingness to alter practices

Google proposed that adjusting its practices would be less risky compared to a breakup. Some executives suggested that the company could agree not to directly integrate its buying tools while refusing to lower fees. The tension between maintaining some monopoly power and ensuring fair competition was notable during the testimonies.

Google’s defense relied on asserting that its businesses are not currently anticompetitive. However, the judge questioned the validity of continuing monopoly practices without adequate restrictions to prevent future abuses.

Judge’s reactions and future implications

The judge queried the necessity of a breakup, highlighting that a court order might suffice in enforcing compliance from Google. The judge noted that previous breakup cases had positive outcomes, but concerns about losing innovation were also raised.

As the trial progresses, the mixed signals from the judge indicate that she is weighing the implications of both structural remedies and behavioral restrictions to prevent Google from re-establishing its dominance.

T
Original Source
Read on Theverge

FAQ

Why is a breakup necessary?

To restore competition in ad tech markets.

How does Google plan to respond?

Google argues for adjustments instead of a breakup.

What are the judge's concerns?

The judge is uncertain about effective remedies.

Table of Contents