Business
Yelp versus Google: An antitrust court fight plays out in San Francisco
For years, Yelp has complained about Google’s practices, alleging that the tech giant placed its own products above competitors in Google search results.
Yelp says when a customer searches, say, for “restaurants in Brooklyn,” Google prioritizes putting its own summary and ratings above non-sponsored results from rivals including Yelp, resulting in fewer customer visits and ad revenue for its business.
The San Francisco company that crowd-sources customer reviews is now taking its complaints to court in a closely watched federal lawsuit that is causing waves in Silicon Valley.
In a lawsuit filed this week, Yelp accuses Google of violating U.S. antitrust laws, stealing information from Yelp’s website and passing it off as coming from Google. The complaint also alleges Google tweaks its algorithm to steer customers away from Yelp.
“Google’s conduct has injured Yelp through lower traffic, reduced advertising revenues, raising Yelp’s own costs, and impaired network effects that come with fewer new and returning users,” Yelp said in its lawsuit.
Google has dismissed the claims as baseless and noted that in 2013 the Federal Trade Commission found that Google did not break antitrust law or harm consumers.
“Google will vigorously defend against Yelp’s meritless claims,” the company said in a statement.
Legal experts said the lawsuit could be the first of several legal claims against Google, the Mountain View, Calif., technology giant that is facing growing scrutiny over its business practices. It comes weeks after a federal judge ruled Google violated antitrust laws and is a monopolist on web searches, paving the way for Yelp and potentially other companies to sue Google for antitrust practices.
“That decision was really groundbreaking in the antitrust law,” Aaron Schur, Yelp’s general counsel, said in an interview. “We saw it as a very strong foundation, to be able to argue to a court that Google, this illegal monopolist in general search, is actually abusing that monopoly to also dominate a local search market and a local search advertising market through self-preferencing.”
The ruling earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta marked a notable shift in the interpretation of U.S. antitrust law, which historically has been used to address big oil and railroad companies, with the concern that those companies would grow so large that it would affect prices for consumers.
“Since the turn of the century, people have been reluctant to bring these types of suits because of where antitrust law was at the time, because there’s no price associated with this,” said John Shaeffer, a partner at law firm Fox Rothschild.
Google said it would appeal the ruling.
Still, Mehta’s decision could help pave the way for other businesses to bring lawsuits against Google, especially if Yelp wins, some legal experts said.
“It certainly opens this up for others similarly situated or just making the argument that they’ve been harmed by Google and its monopolistic behavior,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond.
Google said “Yelp’s claims are not new,” pointing out the San Francisco business brought up similar claims years ago, and said that its search results help businesses, driving more than 3 billion website clicks every month.
Although the FTC in 2013 did not find Google violated antitrust law after a 19-month investigation, documents that have leaked since then revealed that some FTC staff members had urged the commission to sue Google over some of its practices, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Yelp has also been subjected to investigations from the FTC that resulted in no action taken on the company. Google has tried to acquire Yelp in the past.
The U.S. Justice Department filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple and Google this year and against Amazon in 2021, as concerns have grown over their footprint in the industry and limiting of consumer choice.
State legislators unsuccessfully pushed a bill that would have required companies like Google, which sell advertising alongside news content, to pay news publishers. A settlement was later negotiated under which Google would pay about $173 million over five years that would go to journalism outlets and an AI accelerator program.
“We’ve really seen a swing in the political climate and the understanding of antitrust as being truly important to everyone,” Schur said.
Yelp’s lawsuit could ultimately end up at the Supreme Court.
“I don’t think they filed this in order to get a payday,” said Bryan Sullivan, a founding partner at law firm Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae. “I think they filed this to make a point and to try to change the landscape.”
Times news researcher Scott Wilson contributed to this report.
Business
Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
Business
Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Business
How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
Movie Reviews5 minutes agoMovie Review: The Mortuary Assistant – HorrorFuel.com: Reviews, Ratings and Where to Watch the Best Horror Movies & TV Shows
-
World17 minutes ago
Meta slashes 8,000 jobs, or 10% of its workforce, as Microsoft offers buyouts
-
News23 minutes agoTrump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks
-
Politics29 minutes agoTrump Reposts Anti-Immigrant Tirade Calling China and India ‘Hellhole’ Places
-
Business35 minutes agoNike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan
-
Science41 minutes agoNew Gene Therapy Enables Children With a Rare Form of Deafness to Hear
-
Health47 minutes agoFibermaxxing Snacks Make Weight Loss Easy—Hunger Doesn’t Stand a Chance
-
Culture59 minutes agoPoetry Challenge Day 5: The Role of Poetry In Our Lives