U.S. Justice Department Has Filed Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google

[travelin cat]

[nytimes.com...]

The Justice Department plans to accuse Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising in a lawsuit to be filed on Tuesday, the government’s most significant legal challenge to a tech company’s market power in a generation, according to officials at the agency who were not authorized to speak on the record.

[JesterMagic]

So how do people think the government can fix this mess? It's not like we can snap are fingers and split the market share of Google Search, etc.. with 2 other competitors. This can only happen gradually. The same can be said for app store dominance, YouTube, Online Ads, etc...

IMO the changes needed don't just start with Google but the entire tech industry.

For starters I think Hardware suppliers that use some sort of OS with their products (like Computers, Phones, Game Consoles, etc..) of a certain install size needs to follow rules when it comes to preloaded software and default settings. For example when you bootup the device for the first time you are required to pick a default search engine. This would be some sort of randomly sorted list of search engines that meet certain conditions. This would mean no more search deals between Google and Apple and would allow search engines Like DuckDuckGo a chance (if they met the criteria) to grow over the years much easier.

Like wise users would also for example get to pick from different app stores (or easily have multiple stores installed). This is where companies like Google and Apple tend not to always play fair with developers and truly making it easier for users to add or pick a different app store would level the playing field.

So, what is the criteria a search engine needs to meet before being added to this predetermined random sorted list of default search engines? It could be things like % of ads on a page (and how well they are marked as such), % of ad space used above the fold, % of widgets on the page, % of organic results, etc... All this stuff would have to be determined probably by some sort of government agency (which would of course add its own problems)

You could do the similar type of criteria for app stores as well. You could add criteria they would need to meet that deal with privacy, testing of apps to make sure they don't do anything nefarious, etc...

This would unfortunately add an extra layer of red tape but I am not sure how else we can get out of the mess we are in and foster actual real competition.

It's also difficult to say how far we need to take this. For example the game console industry has 3 major players in it of relatively the same size and the competition between them is pretty good and works well for the user now. But maybe this may not always be the case? Maybe with this next generation of console, PS5 surges ahead which means game developers have to rely on Sony more to be fair when they dictate the rules of the PS Store and their game streaming services.

These are just a few thoughts I had on the subject and am curious what other ideas are out there and how they would work.

[samwest]

@jester - I would like to see transparency in what they are doing, how their algo works and if and how they are manipulating traffic. This would require third party verification and does not need to be made public, but it needs oversight. If this information were public domain, you and I know what would happen immediately...it would be gamed. Google should not be some secret "black box". The problem with oversight then is who polices the police?
The other simpler option is to start using DDG. I already switched over and I like the non biased results much better. I can actually find true stories again.

[JorgeV]

Nothing will happen, because, if they touch companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft etc, there is a risk that this will weaken US dominance on the Internet.

The US can't break apart US companies, when, at the same time China is building mega companies, like Tencent or Alibaba.

This is no long a matter of US internal market.

At best, they'll fine Google et al, in a way that it doesn't hurt significantly their finances.

[heisje]

@JorgeV
Not so : it is not the size of its companies that has made America a world leader (pathetic Exxon, anyone?) but the power of ingenuity and innovation of its scientists, researchers, technicians, universities, venture businessmen, etc (Elon Musk, anyone?).

Monopolies are vested in the status quo, profiting from their *current* dominant position, abusing their position to stifle innovation, crush/buyout-and-kill innovative competitors & start-ups, and obliterate any concern/business that refuses to succumb to its grand plan of profiteering.

Google true income is by far derived from advertising, an activity sustained mainly by blackmail, i.e. by the threat (and real power) of burying anybody on the 'Net who refuses to pay.

A Mafia - How innovative!
.

.

[JorgeV]

has made

Yes, like you said "has made," this is how it was so far. But the World has changed and is changing again more fast.

Elon Musk

He is South African (from Canadian and South African parents)...

[glakes]

Nothing will happen, because, if they touch companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft etc, there is a risk that this will weaken US dominance on the Internet.

I agree. And remember, the US Government is not allowed to collect/store private data on its citizens. Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. are all allowed to do this which gives the US Government quick and easy access to an individual's private data. The national security implications of breaking up these companies will be the chief reason why the USA won't do it.

Big data and Big Government sleep in the same bed...

[JorgeV]

That too. This is why Mark Z has nothing to worry. They audit him, once on a while, for the picture.

There was an urban legend saying that the CIA had an office at Facebook headquarter, it wouldn't surprise me :)

[tangor]

Much of the above is webmaster speculation ... and some is probably valid, but it is different this time around in that Big Tech (all of the majors) have exhibited DEFINED BEHAVIORS that are going to be addressed with revisions of Section 230 to contain this new behavior. That alone, will change the way the web is NOW to something different.

Additionally none of us can say g is NOT the be-all-monster-in-advertising and who gets to play because we read all too frequently of setbacks for many who have used g for their revenue stream.

Monopoly does not mean 100%, it simply means complete control over a market. Again, we have empirical proof of that when webmasters ask: "Where can I find a different revenue stream that pays what g used to pay?"

Actions taken by Big Tech this year have ignited a fire of determination ON BOTH SIDES of the issue at hand ... because BOTH sides now know and realize IT COULD HAPPEN TO THEM as well.

This won't be a slap on the wrist ... but how it all shakes out is YTBD.

Personally I don't have that much invested since I left the g ecosystem years ago, but I do continue to service clients who depend on it, and share their concerns of the changes and reductions, and loss as g takes more, gives less, and creates competing niches one cannot break into ... unless you already have enough money to pay to play.

YMMV!

[JesterMagic]

I think a combination of where it is easy to break up the companies they need to for example: Google and YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, etc...

Some breaks up would be harder to separate ie Google Search from their Ad business, the App Stores from their OSs, so criteria would be needed to be put into place that gives competitors a fair chance and make them more easily discoverable (which I outlined in a post above).

Clear rules for things like search engines and digital assistants would need to be defined not only in terms of what is ads, how many ads, but with user privacy as well.

A lot of these services are also crucial to everyday life of individuals and businesses (Facebook business page, gmail email address, etc...). I think requirements for some sort of customer service level is needed as well.

Wishful thinking on my part... probably.

[JorgeV]

gives competitors a fair chance

Indeed, but, is the USA ready to give a fair chance to foreign competitors?

[engine]

I would go along with Google making changes to its systems as it discovers the case against it. It will hope those changes will mitigate any fines.

BTW, I fired up a new browser today to try first time use of google, and if you go to google's site and, at its prompt for privacy and ad delivery, the number of screens and various hoops to jump through are ludicrous. Try it, it's terrible. That alone should be the target of the lawmakers, imho.

[Dooku]

Splitting up companies and other solutions proposed in this thread are all nothing more than symptom relief. Solutions like that will not make an end to the current situation. Because, unlike some people believe, this is a very specific problem to the USA. Did anyone read the business history of Uber regarding it's former CEO and current board of directors?
If it was a fictional thriller than you would not believe it and claim this is way over the top. However that was and is reality when, admittedly this is the worst kind in it's form, when you allow businesses far too great a leeway.

G, FB and the rest are not much better, but they hide it much better from the public. Why would a company (G) use the "attorney-client privilege" in just about EVERY sensitive email in internal communication that could possible get them into trouble? You try that in Europe and your done. As a G employee that should at the minimum make you think if this is the right company to work for? If your goals and methods of doing business are 100% ethical while claiming you are serving the best interest of consumers, than why are you using the "attorney-client privilege" loop in every piece of communication. And why do you actively prohibit your employees to even mention the word "antitrust" without serious negative consequences to their careers?

I also do not agree to the claims that this situation has come about because of "the power of ingenuity and innovation of its scientists". This displays clearly a lack of knowledge of the history of Silicone Valley and the US in general. In the words of the famous american physicist Michio Kaku: "America has a secret weapon. And that secret weapon is the H1-B (foreign work visa). Without the H1-B, the scientific establishment of America would collapse." (this speech is available on youtube)

This means, as @Tangor also stated, that you can only make reforms by changing the law. Then implement government regulatory bodies for this industry like we have in Europe which have the means and authority to go after misbehaving companies and can punish them where it hurts. For example the next step in upcoming EU laws is a proposal to also make the CEO's of such companies personally liable.

The striking difference between the USA and other parts of the world in relation to business ethics is the almost total freedom they allow for their companies. And we have all seen the very obvious proof of what will happen when you do so.

[glakes]

Much of the above is webmaster speculation

Anything at this point is speculation. But there is history to see how politics will likely interfere with what is good for consumers and free markets. History as in 2012 when FTC staff recommended the Government sue Google and ALL commissioners voted against it in January of 2013. Not one of the five commissioners agreed with their own staff to sue Google. Two months later, on November 6, 2012, President Obama was re-elected. Sitting in his war room on re-election night was Eric Schmidt, the then Executive Chairman of Google. Not surprisingly, Eric Schmidt is now involved in US Government as chair of the US Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Advisory Board.

Politicians, and the US Government as a whole, are more corrupt than Google could ever be. Look at all the data regarding China. Many politicians will criticize China for stealing IP, building man made islands in disputed regions of the sea, polluting the environment, not adhering to trade agreements, operating slave labor camps, willfully/intentionally helping to spread COVID, releasing movies that threaten military action against the USA, etc. I could keep going, but the bottom line is political leaders all speak of China as an evil Communist country. Yet, the USA's trade deficit with China continues to grow and China's rise to power is largely being funded with USA dollars. This is another example of politicians talking out of their behinds. They publicly condemn China yet do absolutely nothing. Chances are they are getting rich from exporting America's wealth. The same applies to Google. Politicians will beat their chests at how bad Google is then apply a ton of political pressure to see that whatever changes occur does not impact their own investments.

Big Data and Big Government sleep in the same bed. Consumers and small businesses are the maids that make their bed every morning...

[JesterMagic]

Splitting up companies and other solutions proposed in this thread are all nothing more than symptom relief. Solutions like that will not make an end to the current situation. Because, unlike some people believe, this is a very specific problem to the USA.

I don't see it as all symptom relief as some of the suggestions tries to fix the root problem. Fixing it and seeing results will take time though.

This is by no way just a USA problem. While the EU has done somethings to try to fix the problems it has done it in a piece meal fashion. The fines also while large to most corporations is a drop in the bucket for Google.

[samwest]

LIVE coverage of Senate hearings on BigTech interference. [facebook.com...]

[engine]

For those of you without FB, here's the Youtube link [youtube.com...]

[engine]

[ArturNoubel]

This is my first time visit here. From the tons of comments on your articles,I guess I am not only one having all the enjoyment right here. I read a lot of interesting thoughts.

[phranque]

welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com], ArturNoubel!

[tangor]

I guess I am not only one having all the enjoyment right here.

Stick around! The best is yet to come!

[JS_Harris]

Something constructive you can do right now - Go to your site and remove the social media buttons from all cart and sales pages. They don't belong there, your visitors don't need to be telling big tech what they are buying because some button image or 3rd party or big tech social code recorded a pageview on a sales page.

Webmasters can become more responsible too.

[tangor]

Webmasters can become more responsible too.

Agreed ... yet at the same time I get the urgent reliance on these mega corps for any kind of revenue they can eek out.

This is 2020, Not 2000.

[JorgeV]

Hello,

Another thing regulators need to be very careful with, is that, Internet giants are pulling up market stock exchange, ... so if you weaken them, there is a risk their stock values collapse, and drags down other companies' stocks too, ... which will also drag down all investors, ... including Pension funds ... so, it can have an impact on retirement pensions of millions of people ...

social media buttons

You can also use pure HTML social media buttons, no need to call external javascript and so on.

[tangor]

^^^ One who's been around for a bit: Most of that is artificially inflated and it's not really "money in the bank". Pie in the sky stuff.

The same predictions were made about the break of AT&T all those years ago ... and they are doing better NOW than they ever did back then.

Will be intriguing to see what happens IF there is a breakup of g et al.

I'll bring the popcorn while this movie plays out!

[bwnbwn]

Ma Bell said the same thing Google is saying. What happened.

[phranque]

Ma Bell said the same thing Google is saying. What happened.

Southwestern Bell, one of the 7 RBOCs ("Baby Bells"), became SBC and then eventually acquired Ma Bell itself and changed their name to AT&T, which then acquired 3 other former RBOCs (Ameritech, BellSouth, and Pacific Telesis)
Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, two of the other 3 RBOCs, combined to become Verizon and then eventually acquired AOL and Yahoo!

[JesterMagic]

Indeed, but, is the USA ready to give a fair chance to foreign competitors?

Yes that is a question especially with the rise of companies in China that they themselves get investments from their government (not only financial but through information as well like research from companies in the west and sharing it with Chinese companies (look at the story of Nortel)).

The other issue that has to be fixed with these large companies is taxes and the way they claim revenue in other countries with low tax rates but meanwhile that revenue was mostly earned in the United States.

[MayankParmar]

US federal and state authorities are preparing as many as four antitrust cases targeting Facebook and Google by the end of January 2021 [wsj.com...]

[edited by: not2easy at 3:40 pm (utc) on Nov 30, 2020]
[edit reason] splice cleanup [/edit]

[JorgeV]

It looks like Facebook is rushing the release of its Libra currency: [cnet.com...] I wonder if it's related.

[jpmmedia]

Good... almost impossible to find any open webmaster forums using their search. Another big issue is
How Apple, Google, and your wireless carrier control your phone. Companies that control what you can do with your phone are called "gatekeepers."

They dictate (like a dictatorship) what is allowed on their marketplace, AKA "gatekeepers" like play store etc

They do have a monopoly and the majority of big tech major shareholders, boards, and directors are working exclusively together, creating strong barriers to entry for small business. Also, their major shareholders are holding corporations (international monopolies)