Related Posts
*#AThousandThankYous to the front line workers*
Our nation saw a disheartening surge in covid cases. Amidst these tough and painful times, the doctors, nurses, and hospital staff continue to work day in and day out for our safety, our lives.
Calling you to join hands, as we raise funds to show them a token of gratitude with a small care package.
A ray of light to those who deserve #AThousandThankYous 🙏🏻
Please donate at - bit.ly/aThousandThankYous
an Elementary School Special Education Teacher
Mentor
Name one thing every engineer should have.
Additional Posts in Advertising
Thoughts on possible LA?
Retail, Social, Pharma. Fuck, Marry, Kill....
Chief
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Don’t worry, they can a buy a Trump property and it will all be forgiven
doing my part
body below ⬇️
Byline Josh Sisco and Leah Nylen
Google illegally monopolized some online advertising technology markets, according to a federal judge, whose ruling marked the latest antitrust setback for the company and a challenge to its main source of revenue.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found on Thursday that the Alphabet Inc. unit violated antitrust law in the markets for advertising exchanges and tools used by websites to sell ad space, known as ad servers. But she said the company didn’t meet the definition of a monopoly for a third market of tools used by advertisers to buy display ads.
The Justice Department also sought sanctions against Google for alleged intentional destruction of evidence.
“Google’s systemic disregard of the evidentiary rules regarding spoliation of evidence and its misuse of the attorney-client privilege may well be sanctionable,” Brinkema ruled. But because she ruled for the government on the available evidence, sanctions are not necessary, she said.
In ruling for the Google on the advertiser-side market, Brinkema found that advertisers can choose different options based on “perceived return on advertising expenditures.”
The judge pointed to the owner of a beauty tech startup who testified that she switched from Google’s AdWords to Instagram based on her experience with each platform. She wrote “the advertiser is the consumer and is focused on reaching users regardless of which channel they are using.”
And while Brinkema found that Google’s deals boosted the company’s monopoly power, “the government failed to show that the DoubleClick and Admeld acquisitions were anticompetitive.”
US v. Google, 23-cv-00108, US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).
— With assistance from Matt Turner, Jillian Ward, and Peter Jeffrey