Shaun Lohman’s Post

🚨 Google Wins Big in the EU Courts 🚨 In a significant development for the tech giant, the EU General Court has annulled Google’s €1.49 billion fine, initially imposed by the European Commission for abusing its dominant market position in online advertising. Explore the full article for an in-depth look at the ruling details🔗➡️https://lnkd.in/dfb5RqfR ✍️Andrew J. Zammit #GVZH #TMT #GoogleAds

The U.S. Department of Justice's request for a trust-busting remedy to end Google’s alleged internet search monopoly is “very, very dangerous and very, very problematic,” counsel for the tech giant said Tuesday in District of Columbia federal court. DOJ’s proposed solution would force Google to sell off its web browsing business and would “dampen and discourage a lot of innovation” in artificial intelligence applications, Google's attorney told U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta. Mehta in August ruled that “Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States—general search services and general text advertising—through its exclusive distribution agreements.” As Google prepares to file its own proposed remedy by Dec. 20, the Mountain View, California-based company wants DOJ to produce a complete list of named witnesses whom the department intends to call at a future remedies hearing. Mehta gave DOJ a Dec. 10 deadline to produce a presumptive witness list and warned the agency not to seek “water cooler discussion” documents from Google as the government demands “formal and informal” internal communications ahead of an evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin in April. The status conference in Mehta’s courtroom Tuesday followed Monday’s closing arguments before U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Google’s advertising tech bench trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. Full story from Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman: https://lnkd.in/epEhj-2N

The federal government is accusing Google of monopolizing the online advertising technology market. 🔍 In this high-stakes trial, Google is defending its practices and arguing that the industry is highly competitive. What are your thoughts on the government's allegations? Do you believe Google has an unfair advantage? https://lnkd.in/drAgaBvS #Google #antitrust #technology #law #business #onlineadvertising #competition #monopoly #MarTechPulse

Google Wins Round One in US Digital Ads Lawsuit, But Fight Far From Over #Google_Wins #google #prativad #Digital_Ads_Lawsuit #Digital #Ads #Lawsuit #Tech #TechNews #US #Ads #DigitalNews

We've seen some big increases in the costs of online advertising over the last couple of years. Now, a US judge has ruled that Google violated anti-trust law, effectively creating a monopoly in search (and for their advertising), paying billions of dollars to establish it ($26.3 billion in 2021 alone). If search and display advertising become more open for competition, are we likely to see costs come back down as a result of increased competition? https://lnkd.in/g4YHeukD

‘Google Is a Monopolist,’ Judge Rules in Landmark Antitrust Case! A federal judge in the United States has ruled that Google violated antitrust laws by becoming the default search engine on major web browsers, a decision that could significantly disrupt digital advertising. The upcoming trial in September will further examine Google's digital advertising practices. If Google's position changes, publishers will need to adapt their SEO strategies to stay visible to users. https://lnkd.in/g4D5qD5p Digital advertising services # cross border advertising services # native advertising services # compliance # antitrust laws

#USvGoogle day 9 kicked off with lawyer-to-lawyer drama. Google shared their witness list with DOJ, where 6 of 19 relate to gov't advertising. Some are gov't advertisers while others are Google acc't managers. Reminder: Google paid $2.3M to settle gov't damages claim, which is why this is no longer a jury trial. DOJ’s Ms. Wood flagged this to the court, along with Google’s prior argument that government advertisers are not representative of all advertisers, along with the fact that none of the advertisers, during their depositions, have actually used Google’s tools. They use agencies, and we’ve heard cross-examination by Google of those agency witnesses already. Judge Brinkema says 1, maybe 2 can testify. Ms. Dunn pushes for 3. Unclear if that’s 3 advertisers or 3 of the total 6. If the latter, she’ll be sorely disappointed as Judge Brinkema makes it clear again that she’s done with cumulative testimony, and will be more “draconian” moving forward. We then get into the cross-exam of Dr. Timothy Simcoe, DOJ expert witness. Karen Dunn spends two hours attempting to poke holes in his testimony and methodology, often using weird math to draw faulty comparison, getting her wrist slapped a few times for out-of-line comments where she tried to signal to the Court the “importance” of a particular issue or question. We finally get to Jonathan Bellack, long-time Google PM that came over with the acquisition of DoubleClick. No fireworks, but a more complicated story emerges: one where the product team wanted to do right by publishers, but leadership only cared about the bottom line. It’s reminiscent of what we heard from Eisar Lipkovitz. At one point, there’s an email about Jedi++ that mentions that the goal with Exchange Bidding was to roll out a product “slightly better” than Header Bidding. The email also says that the industry doesn’t seem to care about latency. By this point, HB innovation had continued, so EB would have been “inferior.” Bellack explains that his goal was to make a product that’s as much “better” as possible than Header Bidding, but leadership’s directive was to make it only “slightly” better. DOJ asks if that’s because AdX is so profitable, and Bellack says that DOJ would need to ask leadership about their rationale. Bellack also reveals that he considered HB a threat as had heard from publishers including Amazon that they didn’t trust Google and found its structure “unacceptable,” as we see an email where he had proposed the creation of a “neutral” exchange organization. He is the first Xoogler that did not seem overly coached, and this sense seems validated by Dunn’s comments that she wants to consider during lunch recess whether Google will ask him any questions on cross-exam. If I were a betting gal, I’d say they won’t. UPDATE: I was right. This afternoon we get the rest of the deposition read-ins, and much-referenced expert Dr. Robin S. Lee is the DOJ’s final witness. Google is slated to begin their case tomorrow.

Search engine marketing is set for a shake-up after Google's antitrust ruling. Here's what you need to know: 🔍 WHAT’S HAPPENING: A court has ruled that Google has been unfairly dominating the search market by paying to be the default search engine on devices and browsers. This could force the tech giant to change its practices, allowing other search engines to compete more fairly. Google plans to appeal the decision. 🔮 WHY IT MATTERS: This ruling could create new opportunities for competitors and diversify traffic sources for marketers. If Google loses its default status, users might try other search engines, leading to a more varied digital landscape. Marketers may need to adjust their SEO and advertising strategies to include these emerging platforms. #DigitalMarketing #IndustryNews