
Justice Dept. plans to file antitrust charges against Google in coming weeks - mitchbob
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/politics/google-antitrust-justice-department.html
======
nlh
I read this story just now and I found it incredibly frustrating -- it reads
like a gossip column. Lots of details about who wants to do what and when and
who objects, but incredibly light on actual details.

What laws are they going to claim Google has broken? Vague hand-waves about
"advertising" and "Google is involved in your life" doesn't cut it for me.

Does anyone have a source or a hunch of what specific anti-trust laws Google
is violating with what specific actions?

~~~
themgt
My guess is there will be multiple lines of attack, but this paper[0] which
was also at least implicitly referenced in the recent Congressional hearing
seems very likely to be one of them:

 _Approximately 86% of online display advertising space in the U.S. is bought
and sold in real-time on electronic trading venues, which the industry calls
"advertising exchanges." With intermediaries that route buy and sell orders,
the structure of the ad market is similar to the structure of electronically
traded financial markets. In advertising, a single company, Alphabet
(“Google”), simultaneously operates the leading trading venue, as well as the
leading intermediaries that buyers and sellers go through to trade. At the
same time, Google itself is one of the largest sellers of ad space globally.
This Paper explains how Google dominates advertising markets by engaging in
conduct that lawmakers prohibit in other electronic trading markets: Google’s
exchange shares superior trading information and speed with the Google-owned
intermediaries, Google steers buy and sell orders to its exchange and websites
(Search & YouTube), and Google abuses its access to inside information. In the
market for electronically traded equities, we require exchanges to provide
traders with fair access to data and speed, we identify and manage
intermediary conflicts of interest, and we require trading disclosures to help
police the market. Because ads now trade on electronic trading venues too,
should we borrow these three competition principles to protect the integrity
of advertising?_

[0]:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3500919](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3500919)

~~~
gen220
The deep question:

> In the market for electronically traded equities, we require exchanges to
> provide traders with fair access to data and speed, we identify and manage
> intermediary conflicts of interest, and we require trading disclosures to
> help police the market. Because ads now trade on electronic trading venues
> too, should we borrow these three competition principles to protect the
> integrity of advertising?

It boils down to: should we regulate ad exchanges like we regulate equity
exchanges, such that the exchange operator (e.g. Alphabet, NYSE) cannot also
be a participant in the traded assets.

If you believe the answer is yes, alphabet's ad exchange should not be in the
same parent company as youtube and google.

Unbundling the ad exchange from alphabet's other services sounds like it would
be a herculean technical nightmare! Might be easier to start from scratch (:

~~~
jeffbee
Of all the crazy stuff that has been proposed on HN under the umbrella of
"breaking up Google", excising the ad exchange might be the least technically
challenging, and also one of the few that are economically practical.

~~~
treis
I don't see how it's economically practical. How are Chrome, Gmail, Maps, et
al going to be able to support themselves without the ad cash cow?

~~~
brandonmenc
> How are Chrome, Gmail, Maps, et al going to be able to support themselves

Start providing value in exchange for cash.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
G-Suite (Gmail) costs money.

Google Maps for Business use is prohibitively expensive (for me) - we use
Azure Maps instead.

Chrome is a weird thing, though.

------
throwaway5752
This is so grossly political that it's disgusting. Clearly the administration
sees Google through the lens of an adversary, which is astonishing enough.

When reading something like this, _" according to five people briefed on
internal department conversations."_ is the first clue. You have mass leakage
of internal discussions, with career ending consequences. You can't have any
greater signal that something is very wrong, and that people believe the chain
of reporting is compromised.

The question of whether Google represents a monopoly is critical for every
software professional in this forum, and it is a trillion dollar US company
that represents most people's discovery platform for information. It has has
nuance, and there are gray areas that are going to have generational impact
when they are litigated. It an _important legal question_ and not well served
by a thin case served out two months from an election.

~~~
tathougies
Hacker news is so bipolar on this. I've seen calls on this site for immediate
antitrust law cases against google, and now that the Trump DOJ is doing it,
immediately, there's a rush to defend Google. It's getting nauseating really.

Something being 'political' is not bad, especially when it being 'political'
enforces the will of the people against those who ought to be subject to the
will of the people. In particular, many Americans believe Google to be
engaging in anti-competitive practices, so being political by following what
the American populace wants cannot and should not be used as an insult.

~~~
geofft
> _I 've seen calls on this site for immediate antitrust law cases against
> google, and now that the Trump DOJ is doing it, immediately, there's a rush
> to defend Google._

Well, that's my actual position. "The last temptation is the greatest treason:
to do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I think it's important to enforce the laws we have fairly. However, going
after political opponents because they are political opponents, and
retroactively figuring out what laws you can use against them, is very
different from enforcing the laws fairly. I think we should be going after
many more companies than we do on antitrust grounds (and I think society would
be better if we had even more stringent antitrust laws). Going after a single
company and saying "Hmmm, antitrust?" does not actually succeed at maintaining
the rule of law.

(I do, for what it's worth, agree that "political" is not an insult. It's a
descriptor, and it applies to just about anything involving the government or
the shape of society. In this case, I think it happens to be a descriptor for
something bad. It is entirely good and proper for politics to influence what
laws we have; it is improper for politics to influence against whom we choose
to enforce them.)

~~~
nitrogen
This comment
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24369239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24369239))
has mentioned that multiple major companies are being investigated, so maybe
the investigation into Google just happens to be further along.

~~~
geofft
That's a good point, but also, given that "and Facebook and Amazon" are often
Trump's next words after "Google," it doesn't do much to convince me that this
isn't politically-motivated selective enforcement. (Though, on the other other
hand, I'm not sure what big tech companies Trump isn't mad at, so maybe this
is a low-selectivity filter.)

------
xibalba
I am surprised Google is the highest priority. I would've assumed Amazon or
Apple would top the list of antitrust targets.

~~~
Ensorceled
This is a poltical play. All of these _should_ be targets but the WH is
looking for a pre-election "win", more symbolic than anything.

Google is ~80% of search in the US. Large percentage of online advertising.
Lots of anti-competitive stuff to point to.

Apple is 50% at best of the smartphone market and their major competitors are
South Korean and Chinese. Targeting Apple, with no major US competitor, is NOT
a win. Not a good thing to be bringing up in an election year.

Amazon would also be a complicated anti-trust target, you need to specifically
focus on online retail effects while not allowing Amazon to switch the
conversation to talking about general retail and Walmart/Target. So, too
complicated for any kind of quick traction.

~~~
pbourke
> the WH is looking for a pre-election "win", more symbolic than anything.

The "win" being the announcement of a case and ensuing press coverage or
whatnot? I'm assuming it would take years for such a case to be concluded.

~~~
sdenton4
Pick more fights to distract people from all the existing losing fights! How's
that wall looking?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Going great!

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/politics/border-
wall-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/politics/border-wall-
coronavirus.html)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/nyregion/steve-bannon-
arr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/nyregion/steve-bannon-arrested-
indicted.html)

------
neonate
[https://archive.is/Jlixq](https://archive.is/Jlixq)

------
ideals
It's going to make the next Bilderberg meeting a little awkward for a few
people after they do this.

------
ummonk
The DoJ obviously shouldn't rush into a case poorly prepared. At the same time
though, antitrust issues with Google have been known for so long, and the DoJ
itself has been preparing the case for so long... At some point I'd like to
see the actual case filed. After all, after being filed this case will take
years to work its way through the courts.

Sure it could be for political reasons but it's also possible that Barr just
set the deadline to ensure that the lawyers get a move on already instead of
dragging their feet.

------
RickJWagner
It seems like most of the article is a hit piece against the government
officials, rather than news about Google and the potential suit.

I feel the headline is at least a bit misleading. It's the old bait-and-
switch.

------
zapita
Other comments have pointed out that he is pushing the timeline against the
advice of career lawyers. Everything this Attorney General does should be
scrutinized for underlying partisan motivation.

My guess is that he has ulterior political motives linked to the 2020
presidential election, and he wants to build leverage with Google in relation
to those motives.

~~~
EricE
Career lawyers can’t have underlying partisan motivations either?

This article is scant on real facts, instead it’s just more rumor and innuendo
from “anonymous sources”. Which apparently is just fine even though in the
majority of these stories once the bombastic claims are dropped and more facts
come out later, revealing thatthe claims are either grossly overstated or
outright lies it doesn’t matter because everyone has moved on to the next “ooh
shiny”.

People used to ostracize organizations that take such continual gaslighting to
performance art levels, but apparently its the new normal because “orange man
bad” or something.

~~~
vharuck
Barr is a political appointee who replaced Sessions, who was dismissed by
Trump for being "disloyal." Barr plays the public political game well.

Career workers in Federal agencies can be partisan, but it's harder to think
they're more influenced by politics than the politician. Secret conspiracies
are really hard to believe, because they're really hard to pull off.

I'm more willing to believe investigators always want more time, and this is a
case where our hunger for political reasoning colors our interpretation. Not
saying this is the case, just my Occam's Razor.

~~~
beervirus
Career workers in federal agencies have routinely worked toward anti-Trump
ends.

~~~
rat87
A more accurate way to phrase it is that they have aimed to do their jobs and
their duty to their country.

This frequently pushes them into conflict with Trump

------
donor20
The article reveals the real concern - google has impacted "telecoms and media
companies".

These groups are VERY powerful. They don't want things like net neutrality,
they want to hoover up broadband subsidies without actually delivering service
(and often faking coverage maps etc). And despite all their claims, they are
enormous monopoly like groups, now under republican administrations with much
GREATER concentrations across both content libraries and internet access (time
warner etc).

Under this administration, massive anti-competitive consolidation has been
permitted and encouraged in areas with much much greater consumer harm, by
companies who IMMEDIATELY go back on their promises.

"How Trump’s Department of Justice Just Gave Hollywood Megacorporations
Unlimited Power" [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/09/hollywood-paramount-
decre...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/09/hollywood-paramount-decrees-
streaming-netflix-disney)

"On August 7, US district judge Analisa Torres granted the Department of
Justice’s request to terminate the Paramount Consent Decrees"

The absolute ridiculous irony here is the govt is hand over fist screwing
consumers, and now is going after... google!? ... has having ripped folks off?

Do I believe my cable co was both selling my data for profit and jacking up my
prices because I had no choice? Sure, even when their service was terrible I
was stuck. Any enforcement? Bare minimum (I had to call monthly to get them to
remove their modem rental fee - I wasn't using their modem, but a year after I
started they added the charge and insisted I had their modem but wouldn't tell
me the device ID).

Australia / New Zealand are going to be some good examples here. Very
arbitrarily (vs principles based) rulemaking coming.

------
waynesonfire
A vaccine and this.. what else needs to make it through before the elections?

~~~
tathougies
The Vaccine that has already gone through normal stage 2 trials ensuring
safety? All this talk about a vaccine being 'rushed' is so anti-science, it's
a joke. The vaccine may certainly be ineffective or undereffective if rushed
through phase 3 trials, but the idea it'll be unsafe is hogwash.

~~~
bleepblorp
Stage 1 and 2 trials establish safety in generally healthy people. Stage 3 is
primarily to establish efficacy, but is also vital to establish safety in the
broader population, including among people with existing diseases.

For their own safety, unhealthy people are not generally admitted into stage 1
and 2 trials.

Curtailing stage 3 testing for political gain is dangerous.

------
tobsmagoats
"The attorney general is said to have set a deadline over the objections of
career lawyers who say they need more time to build the case."

all you need to know

~~~
neonate
All? One would at least like to know how common this is. In a corporate
environment, it would hardly be unusual for a manager to insist on a faster
schedule than developers would prefer.

~~~
eropple
It isn't at all common for the AG to override his department's attorneys'
investigative schedules, let alone for political reasons related to his boss's
reelection campaign for reasons and stemming from his crew's inability to Stop
Lying All Of The Time.

~~~
EricE
Really? So the AG’s position is more of figurehead rather than supervisor?

Fascinating.

~~~
eropple
He is a political appointee in an organization that, for the most part, leaves
its civil servants alone once they are emplaced.

Doing otherwise is a historical oddity.

------
mark_l_watson
I don’t like the timing of this, obvious political motivation.

That said, I think it would be a good thing for Google, Apple, Amazon, and
maybe Microsoft to go through this process. When the process works well, the
companies may make needed adjustments to the way they do business, and get
this all over with in a few years.

I am a very happy paying customer of Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. I
would still like them all to be investigated and adjustments made. Capitalism
and free markets work very well with the appropriate amount of government
oversite - set guardrails for allowed behavior.

------
hiram112
Funny how the tone of the comments, so far, is negative. I wonder why.

If the exact same investigation were ramping up in 6 months, under a Biden
controlled DOJ, I'd imagine it'd be one comment after another praising the
decision.

Regardless, this should be an easy case if they want to win. I can't think of
a company in modern times which has obtained so much power and has behaved so
poorly in the past few years.

~~~
Nasrudith
Name their actual bad behavior then - instead of going with the techlash style
vaucous talking point "assertion that something must be done" and then locking
up when asked about any details. It is amazing at how propaganda talking
points cause humans to fail a Turing test like that by acting
indistinguishable from bots.

