Connect with us

Antitrust

Google Grilled on Anticompetitive Digital Advertising Practices During Senate Subcommittee Hearing

Jericho Casper

Published

on

Screenshot of Don Harrison, president of global partnerships and corporate development at Google, during the hearing

September 16, 2020 — Both Republican and Democratic senators on Tuesday grilled a top Google official at a hearing just weeks before the U.S. Justice Department is expected to file an antitrust lawsuit against the search engine giant.

Throughout the antitrust subcommittee hearing, senators focused on whether Google, which bolsters a 90 percent hold on the U.S. online advertising market, misuses its dominance in online advertising to exclude competitors from the market.

The fact that Google bought out a series of digital start-ups that promised to drive competition in the online ad market was one of the main pieces of evidence cited by the senators.

“Google purchased competitors, including DoubleClick and AdMob, to help make it the dominant player in online advertising,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota. “Do you think Google would hold 90 percent of the advertising market if you didn’t buy DoubleClick?”

She and the others were questioning Don Harrison, president of Google’s corporate development since 2012, who appeared remotely because of the pandemic. Harrison oversees the company’s advertising partnerships with other companies.

Klobuchar grilled Harrison on the company’s practices on YouTube, which Google acquired in 2006.

“Half of video ad inventory, outside of walled gardens like Facebook, is on YouTube,” said Klobuchar. She said Google weakened its video ad competitors in 2015 by insisting that only DSPDV360 platforms could bid to place ads on YouTube, after previously allowing all platforms to do so.

This action had a devastating effect on Google’s competitors as “most advertising agencies prefer to only use one DSPDV,” said Klobuchar.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, during the antitrust hearing

The limitation not only forced YouTube’s ad inventory to its own affiliates, which utilize Google’s DSP, it also had the effect of driving non-YouTube ad volume to Google, and away from rival DSPs.

Harrison said that decision came as a result of European privacy laws. Throughout the hearing, Harrison disputed that Google is a “big company” and said advertisers have the “option to go to other websites.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., also criticized Harrison’s replies and said that “Google maintains a tight grasp over each of the many steps between an advertiser looking to place an ad and a website looking to host it.”

How can a single company “represent the seller, the buyer, make the rules, and conduct the auction,” questioned Blumenthal? This practice is “the nub of the issue from an antitrust standpoint.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, questioned Harrison on the company’s recent decision to boot The Federalist, a conservative web site, off of its advertising network over the site’s violations of a Google policy against derogatory content. The matter was specifically related to Black Lives Matter protests.

Harrison maintained that Google “did not demonetize The Federalist” and that the website was free to use the company’s platform, as long as the comment section was moderated, as “some comments were objectionable and offensive.”

“We want to ensure our ads do not show up next to harmful content,” said Harrison.

Yet Hawley maintained that this was a reflection of the Google’s extraordinary market power, which allows the company to force others to moderate their content to Google’s standards or live in fear that the company will “adopt policies to cut off their revenue stream.”

Antitrust

Lawmakers And Newsmakers Tackle Google and Facebook Market Power

Sen. Klobuchar, Rep. Cicilline and experts discuss antitrust, big tech and local journalism.

Tim White

Published

on

Screenshot of Amy Klobuchar taken from Open Markets Institute event

April 21, 2021 – Google and Facebook pose a serious threat to local journalism and—without that journalism—democracy generally, said panelists at an Open Markets Institute event held Tuesday.

With free market competition as a backdrop, the participants discussed antitrust legislation and regulation, data privacy, and funding for journalism.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, who chairs the Senate judiciary’s subcommittee on antitrust, spoke on the recent tussle between Facebook and Australia over news feeds on the social media platform. “That is the very definition of a monopoly — when you can hold a country hostage simply because they want to make sure the content is paid for from the news,” she said.

Both Google and Facebook face several anti-competitive lawsuits from the Department of Justice, states attorneys general, federal agencies and several news publications that claim the big tech’s behavior has led to a monopoly in the digital space.

Google controls over 90 percent of the search engine market and Facebook has eaten up all of their competitors including Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain a social media monopoly, Klobuchar said. She also looked beyond just the tech industry: “America’s competition problem as well, as you all know, isn’t just limited to digital markets. It’s part of a broader problem that affects our entire economy from cat food to caskets,” she said.

“The consequences of the collapse of local news are catastrophic; it’s hard to overstate how severe a threat this is to democracy,” said Steve Waldman, president at Report for America, a national organization dedicated to supporting local journalism.

“We have two dominant platforms who sit between us and our readers, who extract the value of our content, and then they systematically deliver it to the users—our readers—in a highly predictive way so that the users stay within their walled gardens,” said Danielle Coffey, senior vice president at News Media Alliance.

The platforms continue extracting user data that they use as a currency, then when we do get readers, we only get a small percentage of ad revenue, she said. We get hit on the distribution side and the ad revenue side, she added.

Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison focused on the importance of information for democracy. People need to have access to information, which primarily comes from news sources, and those news sources need funding, he said. Without funding, news publications will close or change, and it will challenge the very foundation of our society, because we need informed people who can make decisions, he said.

No leverage on big tech

“We see our bargaining power with Google and Facebook as zero,” said Randy Lebedoff, senior vice president at the Minneapolis’ Morning Star publication. The digital advertising we get from the online platforms doesn’t make up for the drop in print advertising, because “someone else is getting paid for marketing our articles,” she said.

Although Klobuchar focused mainly on competition in tech industry, she also expressed concern over misinformation on social media. America needs to use free market capitalism that will foster new companies with “privacy bells and whistles” and better policies to control misinformation, she said.

Social media has impacted consumer readership through “the rise of what people call fake news, which is just really low-quality, click-bait propaganda,” said Julia Angwin, editor-in-chief at the Markup, a news organization that investigates big tech.

Propaganda used to be expensive to produce, but we’ve decentralized that and now it’s cheap and possible to make money from, she said. The tech companies elevate misinformation through news feeds with their algorithms and then take no responsibility for it, she said.

Legislation to address concerns

“It is high time for privacy legislation in the United States to protect consumers, we’re going to need something at the federal level. It’s going to be a patchwork mess if we approach it only at a state level,” Yale University fellow Dina Srinivasan said.

In February, Klobuchar introduced the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act, S.225, legislation that would target anti-competitive behavior. The bill would increase funding for regulators at the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, and shift the burden of proof in mergers to the company to prove their acquisition does not harm a competitive market, among other things.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, along with several other members of Congress, introduced the bipartisan Journalism Competition and Preservation Act in March, intended to allow small news publishers to collectively negotiate with online platforms to “protect Americans’ access to trustworthy sources of news online,” read the press release.

The bill would allow coordination by news publishers if it “(1) directly relates to the quality, accuracy, attribution or branding, or interoperability of news; (2) benefits the entire industry, rather than just a few publishers, and is non-discriminatory to other news publishers; and (3) is directly related to and reasonably necessary for these negotiations, instead of being used for other purposes,” said the statement.

But Waldman said the Klobuchar and Cicilline bills would likely not help save local news. America needs to look at other policy steps to help local news, he said. He suggested donations toward local journalism efforts.

If there was a slight shift toward viewing journalism as an important part of a community’s health, it would be transformative, he said. It would take $1 to $2 billion of well-targeted money in local news that would double the number of local reporters, which would only be about half of one percent of philanthropic giving, he said.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

Former and Current FTC Commissioners Laud Efforts At Greater Resources For Antitrust Cases

Samuel Triginelli

Published

on

Screenshot of FTC Commissioner Noah Philips on C-SPAN in November 2018

March 17, 2021 – A new antitrust bill by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, is receiving high praise from current and former commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission for its focus on enhancing resources required to tackle competition issues.

“I think we could use more money still,” Noah Phillips, commissioner on the FTC, said at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation conference on Tuesday. “The agencies could do more with more resources, and that goes without saying. There are hard decisions that we have to make with the limited resources that we have.”

William Kovacic, former FTC chairman, reacted to the bill by noting that the debate has effectively shifted from what agency should do the work to how they do it.

“The neglected questions of implementation are starting to receive the attention they deserve, and one of them is resources,” Kovacic said. “When I look at competition authorities around the world, there is an epidemic failure to match commitments with the means necessary to carry out the task in question.”

The FTC in the last year has brought more cases than it ever has since 2001, Phillips said.

“This is a bit of delusion that all of our countries engage in,” Kovacic said. “We have the highest aspirations, the boldest goals, but when it comes to paying for it, we don’t want to do that; we want to drive and take off the lot.”

He related antitrust enforcement’s strength to the net amount of resources that have to be increased to perform existing functions capably. “It is not simply competition,” Kovacic added. “If you benchmark the FTC resources devoted to data protection privacy, we have a decidedly inadequate allocation,” and that is not the FTC’s doing but those are legislative choices, he said.

Screenshot from ITIF event on Tuesday

For the FTC to be a genuinely full-fledged national data protection regulator for privacy, it would have to be double-to-three times the agency’s resources right now, he said.

More resources will enable the agency to carry out its mandate in a more capable way, he said. The essence of success in so many matters is maintaining continuity of staff at a high-level with high-quality.

Phillips, for his part, said part of the funding will go to hiring economists, experts and increasing salaries.

Continue Reading

Antitrust

House Committee Hears of Big Tech’s Alleged Anticompetitive Behavior in New Hearing

Samuel Triginelli

Published

on

Photo of House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline at the Thursday hearing

WASHINGTON, March 2, 2021 – A House committee on Thursday heard of the need for strengthened antitrust measures to stem the influence of big technology companies, which are alleged to have increased its stranglehold on data on the internet.

The committee heard of Google’s and Facebook’s overwhelming control of the digital ad market; Amazon’s alleged anticompetitive practice of demanding small businesses that sell on its platform provide its proprietary information so it can make its own products; and Apple using its position as one of two app store platforms to extract taxes from competitors like Spotify and other news apps.

This is the first in a series of hearings held by the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee to consider legislative proposals to address the rise and abuse of market power online and to modernize the antitrust laws.

On Thursday, the committee played host to antitrust experts and affected businesses for the hearing titled “Reviving Competition,” which was intended to address market power and big tech’s role as gatekeeper online.

The committee also heard about recent actions by the tech giants to silence speech online. Since early October 2020, according to the testimony, Google’s YouTube platform has been deleting numerous conservative channels; Facebook and Twitter have been shutting down pages, including former President Donald Trump’s; and Amazon kicked the controversial social media app Parler off its web hosting service.

Google and Apple blocked the app from their app stores.

Witnesses recommended the government strengthen enforcement agencies so they have more teeth and reform how merger cases are viewed.

Antitrust gatekeepers work to promote competition between powerful and smaller digital companies, and innovative connectivity competitors should be able to compete at the same level with big tech, said Charlotte Slaiman, competition policy director at Public Knowledge.

That would involve creating a level playing field where larger players cannot leverage their own platform to one-up competitors, said Hal Singer, managing director of Econ One.

Sharing those concerns, Eric Gunderson, chief executive officer of Mapbox, said that American competitiveness and innovation are at risk with these giants controlling the sector. Antitrust reform needs to be focused on allowing other companies to be able to compete in a level playing field.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

Trending