Hi friends,

What’s a Google to a Goblin?

Google Antitrust Trial ✅

Google Antitrust Trial Closing Statements ✅

Google Antitrust Remedies Trial ✅

Google Antitrust Remedies Closing Statements — 📍 we are almost here

Google Antitrust Remedies

The Google adtech antitrust remedies trial came to a close on October 6th. Arielle is home after covering it live, and so is our faithful watchdog, Bandit.

The last day of the trial included testimony from Matthew Wheatland, Chief Digital Officer at DailyMail.com. Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the trial was an attempt by Google during Wheatland’s testimony, to downplay its harms to publishers by pointing to AI as the real existential threat…as though Google has nothing to do with the rise of zero-click searches and declining publisher traffic resulting from their AI Overviews.

Here’s an excerpt from Arielle’s coverage:

“Wheatland [explains] how Google’s AI overviews - among other similar products - result in zero-click queries, and thus less traffic to their website. Rhee asks about a quote by his boss about how this tech is a “threat to the news industry.” He explains that the traffic referral concerns raised by AI Overviews and the like are separate. This case is about monetizing the traffic that does get to their pages. For Google to point to the harms to publishers resulting from its AI overviews to diminish the importance of resolving its harms to publishers related to adtech is as absurd as it is arrogant.”

While Google wants the Court to think that its abuse of dominance in adtech is yesterday’s war, the exact opposite is true. We’ve already seen how Google has woven a web of interconnected monopolies: how it monopolized the Search market through exclusive distribution deals that made Google the default, and how it used the advertisers it amassed through its Search dominance to hold publishers hostage in using its sell-side adtech tools. As we look ahead to the ways that AI search is expected to change the internet and consumer behavior, failure to meaningfully address these past harms and ill-gotten gains will only better position and embolden Google - and other big tech companies - to continue to “control the oxygen” of our information ecosystem, and extract more value from publishers, advertisers, and consumers alike.

On November 4th, Google and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed their final remedies proposals. Unsurprisingly, the DOJ made minimal changes, making it clear that behavioral remedies are not enough and structural remedies are necessary. The DOJ's rationale is forward-focused and prescriptive, because if the underlying frameworks supporting Google's dominant position are allowed to continue, Google could replicate its anticompetitive behaviors in new and exciting ways and create a monopoly again. Google adjusted their remedy proposals in an attempt to do damage control, while tryin to stave off GAM divestiture.

Next up, closing arguments will be held on November 17th. Yes, of course, Arielle will be there, and you can donate to cover the cost of a protein shake for Arielle or a special treat for Bandit! Google’s remedies proposals in the EU adtech antitrust case are also due imminently.

A day-by-day trial play-by-play can be found at USvGoogleads.com. The full exhibit and witness lists have been updated, and in the same vein as previous Google antitrust trials, “Google did not call a single witness that is not or has not been paid by Google.”

That Thang is Juicy

While Google is raking in bookoo bucks with digital advertising revenues, publishers of all sizes are struggling to stay afloat.

Despite two major antitrust lawsuits this year, and with a growing list of related lawsuits from publishers, Google pulled in over $100 billion last quarter, a 16% growth compared to last year. We just wanna talk to whoever might be questioning the ruling that Google is a monopoly after reading their quarterly revenue. 🤌

A lot of Google's momentum to hit $100 billion in revenue comes from its massive investment in AI infrastructure and applications. What's not as widely discussed, though, is that many of its AI products power its digital advertising products, enabling Google to further cement its dominant market position. This past quarter, the company has expanded its AI-powered search experiences and AI overviews, and its chatbot Gemini has grown to upwards of 650 million monthly users. This hurts publishers - it reduces their site visits and strips their ability to monetize their websites with ad space.

Pushing for Minor Safeguards and Major Transparency through Ofcom

It was a busy October! In addition to the formal comments we submitted regarding the Media Rating Council’s (MRC) proposed Digital Advertising Auction Transparency Standards last month, we also submitted comments to Ofcom, the communications regulator for the UK, detailing our recommended changes to the Online Safety Act (OSA).

Year after year, platforms continue to bemoan the risks of online harms, but continue to make money off of them anyway. We explained in our submission that harmful material such as hate speech, violence, and child sexual abuse material is regularly monetized, including on livestreams. Advertisers are often unaware of where their ads are placed, as the digital advertising ecosystem often functions as a “black box”. With a lack of Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on both advertisers and content creators before monetization, ads have and will continue to be placed next to illegal harms. This. is in addition to the billions that platforms make from scam advertising alone, Meta, for one, earns about $16 billion annually.

Currently, the OSA doesn't address enforcement actions for the platforms that facilitate and monetize ads surrounding illegal harms online. Through our advocacy, we can utilise and enhance existing legislation that protects children, improves transparency for advertisers, and ensures that no company unintentionally funds harmful material.

Perplexity Hits Pause

Perplexity, the new-to-advertising company that once dabbled with acquiring Google's Chrome browser, has put a pause on accepting new advertisers.

Last year, Perplexity launched its beta ad offerings for big brands for its AI search experience. While that still exists, Perplexity has pulled back on the beta, "to prioritize the user experience." Perplexity has admitted that they aren’t scaling their ads business at the desired rate, and there is a big product gap between top-of-funnel brand awareness instead of the outcomes-based focus that brands want - AKA, they weren't very good. What's even more telling: ads are not even on the current roadmap for Comet, Perplexity’s new AI browser.

Friends of Fair Ads

Our friends at Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted a comment to the ANPR on Personal Financial Data Rights (PFDR) Reconsideration. EPIC urges the CFPB to protect the PFDR rules finalized in 2024, which are some of the strongest privacy and data protections in federal law. EPIC also recommends some amendments to strengthen the enforcement requirements within the PFDR, such as shifting to deleting data as soon as it's no longer needed, instead of deleting it within three years. Users can rest easier since the risk that consumers’ data is breached or improperly used for another purpose is reduced.

 

Love,

The Check My Ads Team