Google Is Once Again Deemed a Monopoly, This Time in Ad Tech

A federal judge today ruled that the exclusive person in some parts of the Google Online Advertising market identified the second case in a year where the company proved to have violated US disbelief law. Last August, a federal judge ruled that Google was maintaining An illegal exclusive In search

Virginia’s Eastern District for the US District Court Judge Leone Brinkema Has been determined that Google has illegally created the exclusive parts of its advertising technology business exclusively Programmatic AD is a major source of revenue for the company, to dominate the market. Google has earned about $ 30.4 billion in worldwide earnings from putting ads on other applications and websites. Now, a significant portion of these sales has been threatened by a fine that can follow the brinchma verdict. Ay The best case scene for our customers A browsing experience filled with low advertising and pawal and more content preferences.

“In addition to depriving the ability to compete in rivals, [Google’s] Brinkema writes that the exclusionary behavior has done considerable damage to Google publisher customers, competitive process and finally open web information.

Google proved that Article 2 of the Cornerstone Antrust Act Sherman Act 2 in the United States proved, “Open-W.B. display publisher advertising Server Market and Open-WHIBE display AD Exchange Market intentionally gaining and maintaining monopoly power, and its publisher AD Server (DFP) and AD EXCE (DFP).” In other words, the way Google tied its advertising technology together was considered illegal.

Online ads end in front of customers after a discipline of the system connected with publishers with advertisers. Google has long been seen as the dominant supplier of equipment in almost every step of the process, which critics argue that the company enables its own systems to give priority treatment and to box the competitors. Some Google offers came through the acquisition of the double -blick purchase in 2007.

However, Brinkema rejected the judiciary allegations that Google illegally made the market the market for some equipment used to buy ads for advertisers, claiming that the definition of the market was very narrow and bad. As a result, Google was not determined as exclusive because it is related to ad -buying equipment, but it was considered to be one in the market for publishing equipment for advertising space sale.

The company is leaning towards the fact that all the plaintiff’s claims do not rise to court. The Vice President of Google Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Ann Mulhland made a statement that Google won the “half case” and the company planned to apply for the other half.

“The court has discovered that our advertisers’ equipment and our acquisition do not damage the competition like double -to -competition.

The AD Tech Suite was first filed by the judiciary and eight states in January, where it was alleged that Google acting as a powerful mediator in the advertising business and the advertising of the advertising revenue in the process illegally squash the competition in the advertising market. Google argued that there was a lot of competition in the online advertising market. Case Went to trial last SeptemberAnd the finished argument was delivered in November.

The judiciary did not immediately respond to any request to comment on the verdict. Jonathan Cantar, a Attorney who supervised the trial while in the section, Wrote x This verdict on Thursday is “incredible enforcement, media industry and a huge victory for the free and open internet.”

Last August, District Judge of Columbia district, Amit Mehta ruled that Google Has maintained an illegal exclusive Both in general search and general search text ad. The judiciary has suggested that Google should be ordered to “divest and fully divest” its Chrome Web browser, and stop providing partners like Apple for the desired treatment on iPhones. Google is fighting against proposals, and a trial is expected to begin on Monday to reach the final remedy of Mehta.

Brinkema has now asked Google and the judiciary to propose a schedule to determine the remedy in the advertising technology case. As a result of this process, the company may be ordered to sell its advertising tools for publishers.