Connect with us

News

Google ‘wilfully’ monopolised online advertising market, US judge rules

Published

on

Google ‘wilfully’ monopolised online advertising market, US judge rules

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A US federal judge has ruled Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising, the latest antitrust defeat for the technology giant that could result in it being forced to divest parts of its business.

Leonie Brinkema, the district judge presiding over the case in Virginia, on Thursday said Google had “wilfully” monopolised two parts of the digital advertising market: the technology online publishers use to sell ad space, and the biggest exchange on which businesses bid for ads.

However, Brinkema found the US Department of Justice, which brought the case, was not able to prove Google unfairly dominated the third component of the market, advertiser ad networks.

Advertisement

The ruling comes after a federal judge in a separate antitrust case last year found the company spent billions of dollars on exclusive deals to maintain an illegal monopoly on search.

The second phase of that trial, in which the court will determine remedies that could include forcing Google to sell parts of its business, begins next week.

The DoJ asked in the search case for Google to sell its Chrome browser, cease $20bn in payments to Apple each year to be its default search engine, and share more data with rivals.

Brinkema on Thursday wrote: “For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets.”

“Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anti-competitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features,” she added.

Advertisement

But she rejected the way the DoJ had tried to define the third part of the market, saying the term “advertiser ad network” was uncommon in the industry and “unduly exclude[s]” publishers.

Google said: “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half . . . We disagree with the court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”

The ruling is the latest win for the former antitrust officials appointed by ex-president Joe Biden who brought and litigated the case before Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Jonathan Kanter, the former head of the DoJ’s antitrust unit, said in a post on X on Thursday: “Today is a huge victory for antitrust enforcement, the media industry, and the free and open internet . . . Google is now an illegal monopolist twice over.”

Antitrust officials appointed by Trump have strongly signalled they intend to adopt a tough stance on enforcement, especially against Big Tech. The US Federal Trade Commission this week began making its case against Meta in a monopoly trial in Washington federal court.

Advertisement

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolising the digital public square,” US attorney-general Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

The EU’s competition chief Teresa Ribera said earlier on Thursday: “We take note of the decision and we will study it with interest. The case being analysed by the European Commission continues.”

The commission is also investigating Google for favouring its own advertising services.

Additional reporting by Barbara Moens in Brussels

Advertisement

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

Published

on

US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets

The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.

“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.

“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.

In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.

“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.

Advertisement

Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.

This story has been updated.

Continue Reading

Trending