Antitrust
Google Grilled on Anticompetitive Digital Advertising Practices During Senate Subcommittee 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
Panel Disagrees on Antitrust Bills’ Promotion of Competition
Panelists disagree on the effects of two antitrust bills intended to promote competition.

WASHINGTON, March 10, 2023 – In a fiery debate Thursday, panelists at Broadband Breakfast’s Big Tech and Speech Summit disagreed on the effect of bills intended to promote competition and innovation in the Big Tech platform space, particularly for search engines.
One such innovation is new artificial intelligence technology being designed to pull everything a user searches for into a single page, said Cheyenne Hunt-Majer, big tech accountability advocate with Public Citizen. It is built to keep users on the site and will drastically change competition in the search engine space, she said, touting the advancement of two bills currently awaiting Senate vote.

Photo of Adam Kovacevich of Chamber of Progress, Berin Szoka of TechFreedom, Cheyenne Hunt-Majer of Public Citizen, Sacha Haworth of Tech Oversight Project, Christine Bannan of Proton (left to right)
The first, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, would prohibit tech companies from self-preferencing their own products on their platforms over third-party competition. The second, the Open App Markets Act, would prevent app stores from requiring private app developers to use the app stores’ in-app payment system.
Hunt-Majer said she believes that the bills would benefit consumers by kindling more innovation in big tech. “Perfect should not be the enemy of change,” she said, claiming that Congress must start somewhere, even if the bills are not perfect.
“We are seeing a jump ahead in a woefully unprepared system to face these issues and the issues it is going to pose for a healthy market of competition and innovation,” said Hunt-Majer.
It is good for consumers to be able to find other ways to search that Google isn’t currently providing, agreed Christine Bannan, U.S. public policy manager at privacy-focused email service Proton. The fundamental goal of these bills is directly at odds with big companies, which suggests its importance to curb anti-competitive behavior, she said.
No need to rewrite or draft new laws for competition
But while Berin Szoka, president of non-profit technology organization TechFreedom, said competition concerns are valid, the Federal Trade Commission is best equipped to deal with disputes without the need to rewrite or draft new laws. Congress must legislate carefully to avoid unintended consequences that fundamentally harm businesses and no legislation has done so to date, he said.
Both bills have broad anti-discrimination provisions which will affect Big Tech partnerships, Szoka continued.
Not all experts believe that AI will replace search engines, however. Google has already adopted specialized search results that directly answer search queries, such as math problems, instead of resulting in several links to related webpages, said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a center-left tech policy coalition.
Kovacevich said he believes that some search queries demand direct answers while others demand a wide range of sources, answers, and opinions. He predicts that there will be a market for both AI and traditional search engines like Google.
To watch the full videos join the Broadband Breakfast Club below. We are currently offering a Free 30-Day Trial: No credit card required!
Antitrust
Key Republican: Anticompetitive Practices of Big Tech Present a Threat to Innovation
Rep. Ken Buck said tech companies’ practices are anticompetitive and threaten innovation, free speech and national security.

WASHINGTON, January 13, 2023 — Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., argued on Wednesday that the anticompetitive practices of large tech companies present a threat to innovation, free speech and national security — and that even Republicans who are traditionally wary of antitrust legislation should view it as a key tool for curbing Big Tech’s power.
“I’m a free market person — I apply that principle to just about everywhere — but if you don’t have a market, you can’t have a free market,” Buck said at a Heritage Foundation event. “And when Google controls 94 percent of the online searches in this country, you don’t have a free market.”
Buck said that it was the responsibility of Congress to actively shape antitrust law, rather than “leaving it up to the courts to create something over the next 30 years.”
Among the several anti-Big Tech bills that have been proposed, Buck highlighted as his priority legislation that would prevent certain companies from acting as both buyers and sellers in digital advertising markets.
The bill applies to companies that generate more than $20 billion in digital ad revenues — specifically targeting Google and Facebook — and has so far received bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
Tech companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying against proposed antitrust bills, making it politically precarious for some members of Congress to support them, Buck said. Still, he urged his colleagues to consider the harms allegedly caused by social media platforms.
“We know that Instagram recognized that there was body shaming going on, there was depression among teenage girls, there was a higher suicide rate among teenage girls, and they doubled down,” Buck said. “They didn’t just say, ‘We’ve got to deal with this issue’ — they decided they were going to start marketing to a younger group.”
More competition in the market could give teens and parents access to better alternatives, Buck said, but the power held by the largest platforms makes it nearly impossible for competitors to emerge.
Rep. Buck linked free speech issues for tech industry to antitrust
“How do you have free speech, how do you have competition in the marketplace when you’ve got four companies that are so big that they can wipe out any kind of competitor?” he asked.
Buck has long been a critic of Big Tech, and introduced legislation to ban the TikTok app from U.S. government devices more than a year before similar legislation was passed as part of the bipartisan spending bill in December. This decision had nothing to do with fear of TikTok as a competitor to U.S. companies, he said.
“TikTok is dangerous, not because of its competition in the marketplace — I think it’s healthy in that sense; if Microsoft or some company had bought it, I’d be all in favor of that kind of competition for Facebook — but the bottom line is [that] how it’s being used by an adversary is dangerous and concerning.”
Although the TikTok ban won broad Republican support, alongside a variety of proposals to target tech companies’ privacy or content moderation practices, many antitrust bills have been less popular.
Buck has been open about his struggles in convincing other Republicans to pursue antitrust action, telling The Washington Post in March that “the antitrust bills that we are currently considering will not move forward under Republican leadership, and that’s been a very clear signal that has been sent.”
And now that the House is under Republican control, several experts have predicted that antitrust legislation is unlikely to move forward any time soon.
In an op-ed published Wednesday, President Joe Biden called on members of Congress to overcome partisan disagreements and keep tech companies in check by passing digital privacy, antitrust and content moderation legislation.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, responded to Biden’s comments in a statement that agreed with the need for privacy and content moderation action but did not mention antitrust.
Antitrust
‘Time is Now’ for Separate Big Tech Regulatory Agency, Public Interest Group Says
‘We need to recognize that absolutely the time is now. It is neither too soon nor too late.’

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2022 – Public Knowledge, non-profit public interest group, further advocated Thursday support for the Digital Platform Commission Act introduced in the Senate in May that would create a new federal agency designed to regulate digital platforms on an ongoing basis.
“We need to recognize that absolutely the time is now. It is neither too soon nor too late,” said Harold Feld, senior vice president at Public Knowledge.
The DPCA, introduced by Senator Michael Bennet, D-CO., and Representative Peter Welch, D-VT., would, if adopted, create a new federal agency designed to “provide comprehensive, sector-specific regulation of digital platforms to protect consumers, promote competition, and defend the public interest.”
The independent body would conduct hearings, research and investigations all while promoting competition and establishing rules with appropriate penalties.
Public Knowledge primarily focuses on competition in the digital marketplace. It champions for open internet and has openly advocated for antitrust legislation that would limit Big Tech action in favor of fair competition in the digital marketspace.
Feld published a book in 2019 titled, “The Case for the Digital Platform Act: Breakups, Starfish Problems and Tech Regulation.” In it, Feld explains the need for a separate government agency to regulate digital platforms.
Digital regulation is new but has rapidly become critical to the economy, continued Feld. As such, it is necessary for the government to create a completely new agency in order to provide the proper oversight.
In the past, Congress empowered independent bodies with effective tools and expert teams when it lacked expertise to oversee complex sectors of the economy but there is no such body for digital platforms, said Feld.
“The reality is that [Congress] can’t keep up,” said Welch. This comes at a time when antitrust action continues to pile up in Congress, sparking debate across all sides of the issue.
-
Fiber4 weeks ago
‘Not a Great Product’: AT&T Not Looking to Invest Heavily in Fixed Wireless
-
Broadband Roundup3 weeks ago
AT&T Floats BEAD in USF Areas, Counties Concerned About FCC Map, Alabama’s $25M for Broadband
-
Big Tech2 weeks ago
Preview the Start of Broadband Breakfast’s Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech4 weeks ago
House Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chairman Gus Bilirakis to Keynote Big Tech & Speech Summit
-
Big Tech3 weeks ago
Watch the Webinar of Big Tech & Speech Summit for $9 and Receive Our Breakfast Club Report
-
#broadbandlive2 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 22, 2023 – Robocalls, STIR/SHAKEN and the Future of Voice Telephony
-
Infrastructure1 week ago
BEAD Build Timelines in Jeopardy if ‘Buy America’ Waivers Not Granted, White House Budget Office Told
-
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on March 8: A Status Update on Tribal Broadband