
Google resists demands from states in digital-ad probe - aty268
https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-resists-demand-from-states-in-digital-ad-probe-11582281000
======
notamanager
Fun fact: Google is allowed to defend itself and is not obliged to give
prosecutors all they want. The framing of “resists giving documents” purposely
makes it similar to “resisting arrest”.

Fun fact 2: the AGs are being advised by a former News Corp (read: WSJ) lawyer
who also advises other google competitors
([https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/08/texas-
attorney-general-googles-new-competition-cop-says-everything-is-table/))

Fun fact 3: AGs are elected so they seek publicity, they are also corrupt: the
one in Mississippi was issuing subpoenas to Google on behalf of the
entertainment industry
([https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attor...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-
general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa-despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-
written-mpaa.shtml))

~~~
pkilgore
You're correct it's unremarkable a company would want to limit it's production
of documents in accordance with their rights to do so under federal and state
rules.

It's super, and I mean super, fucked up that you turn around and accused the
the other side of corruption with literally no evidence that it is true.

It's beyond super fucked up that HN thinks OPs answer adds any actual insight
to this conversation, as opposed to utterly unsupported insinuations.

OP could be right, but we should all be doing better here, from the WSJ to the
people upvoting this garbage.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I don't know. The second line is a bit sketchy, but an AG having the MPAA
ghostwrite things for him seems like pretty good support for an insinuation
that private interests are manipulating the investigation. Maybe the term
"corruption" is too loaded, but would you agree that the AGs are investigating
Google based in part on how third party groups would like the investigation to
go?

~~~
paganel
Not the OP but at this level (a trillion dollar company) there’s definitely a
third-party involved. I don’t particularly see anything wrong with that per se
(I kind of see as “wrong” the part where we have three or four companies which
are worth close to one trillion or more, but that’s another discussion), it is
just a translation of the “checks and balances” thing from the party- and
democracy-level to the corporate level (which corporate level might use parts
of the old system for itself, in this case presumably the AG office). It’s not
an ideal situation if you compare it to what the Founding Fathers might have
desired but it is what it is.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I broadly agree with what you’re saying, but I think it’s misleading to sum it
up as a lack of corruption. This kind of thing is exactly why Google would be
hesitant to give up documents; they know that for many people on the other
side of the table, the primary mission is hurting Google rather than upholding
the law.

------
zomglings
> Company is reluctant to surrender some documents in investigation of
> possible anticompetitive practices

This would be true of any company. It would even be true for many individuals.

This article is nothing more than a bulletin updating us on the latest
developments in the case, painted up to look like more than it is.

~~~
reaperducer
_This article is nothing more than a bulletin updating us on the latest
developments in the case_

It's called a "process" article. Some small thing happens in the process of a
larger event, and it's updated. It helps the publication later if research has
to be done into what happened and what the coverage was. It also indicates to
its avid readers that it's following the event long-term and "on" whatever
happens.

It's just normal journalism. But since the majority of people on HN consume
their news in bits and bites here and there, and random headlines, they don't
understand the benefit.

 _painted up to look like more than it is._

That's more of a matter of opinion than of fact. Sometimes extra background is
added to a process story for the benefit of people coming in for the first
time, or who will only read a few reports about an event over a period of
months or years.

/Was a journalist for 20 years in a previous life.

~~~
CivBase
> That's more of a matter of opinion than of fact.

While the title is technically true, my initial interpretation was that Google
was refusing to comply with a demand which they were legally obligated to
meet. Turns out it was a request which they were well within their legal
rights to deny.

Sure, this is my opinion, but I'd definitely consider that to be a misleading
title. This article is probably only on the HN front page _because_ it is
misleading.

"Google denies request to provide documents in investigation of
anticompetitive practices" is a better title.

------
tylerl
Google has a long history of pushing back for on government requests for data
relating to its customers, and they have years worth of history establishing
that initial government requests are always overreaching.

Is anyone surprised that they'd push back on requests for their own data,
especially when it's run by state AGs (i.e. politically motivated) and
involves turning trade secrets directly over to competitors?

> “To date, Texas has requested, and we have provided, over 100,000 pages of
> information,” the spokeswoman said. “But we’re also concerned with the
> irregular way this investigation is proceeding, including unusual
> arrangements with advisers who work with our competitors and vocal
> complainants."

~~~
vanderZwan
> _advisers who work with our competitors and vocal complainants._

Isn't that kind of to be expected in an investigation into anti-competitive
practices though?

~~~
bagacrap
I'd say "unusual" implies not "to be expected".

------
NikolaeVarius
Click-Bait title.

Better title/article.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/beasleydavid/2020/02/21/report-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/beasleydavid/2020/02/21/report-
google-pushes-back-on-us-states-investigation/)

~~~
kyrra
WSJ is the origin of the story (even Forbes links to them as being the
source). How is it clickbait? Also, the title on the WSJ article right now is:
"Google Resists Demand From States in Digital-Ad Probe". Also from the
article:

> Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the investigation by 48
> states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam, said the company’s
> actions suggest it is withholding information that could be damaging.

> “Every indication right now is they don’t believe that they’re clean because
> they don’t act in any way like they are,” Mr. Paxton said in an interview.

There are lots of responses from Google's side of the aisle about why they
think they are in the right, but this is just a battle of he-said she-said
until they go to court to fight it out.

(I'm a googler, opinions are my own)

~~~
NikolaeVarius
Clickbait can be true and still be clickbait because it picks out a single
controversial sounding aspect of a story and uses that to draw people in.

There can be a an actual reason that Google is not giving up documents
immediately, which is brought up. I don't expect any company/person to give up
everything willingly to 3rd parties.

~~~
s3r3nity
Immediate reason for not giving up documents: Google is worried about leaks
involving their search algorithms, which are very closely guarded (and for
good reason - it's been their bread & butter up to now.)

This is going to be interesting to watch, as the 'States might successfully
argue that to properly understand if anticompetitive behavior took place, they
need to open up the hood to the car, so to speak, and take a look at what's
underneath...

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I think a lot of people would disagree that they should be allowed to keep
their search algorithms secret at this juncture. The impact that this
proprietary decisionmaker has on global business with no oversight is insane.

~~~
magduf
There's a bunch of other search engines out there; no one is forcing you to
use Google search. Duckduckgo, Bing, Yandex, Baidu, etc. are all viable
alternatives. If Google needs to open-source their search algorithms, then why
shouldn't all their competitors?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Their competitors aren't monopolies.

The problem is that I don't use Google Search, but Google Search still impacts
me in a way I can't control. Even if I use DuckDuckGo, my business lives or
dies on what Google Search ranks it. Google is the ultimate kingmaker. They
decide what businesses survive or die.

------
macspoofing
Well yeah ... any good lawyer or legal team will do everything they can to
prevent a fishing expedition. And yes, private individuals and companies are
allowed to defend themselves.

------
scarface74
Does anyone else find it suspicious that a government run by the party that is
suppose to be hands off and “pro business” is going after a company run by
“left coast liberal elites”?

~~~
reportgunner
You could argue that _anticompetitive_ is not _pro-business_.

~~~
marmada
What I don't understand is, if the Republican party is anti-competitive, why
haven't they fought against many of the other monopolies that exist. The
targeting of Google is... suspicious.

------
3xblah
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place."

"It is possible that information could be made available to the authorities."

\- Former Google CEO, Google Chairman and Alphabet CEO

Perhaps statements that could apply to David could apply equally to Goliath.

------
wyldfire
> “But we’re also concerned with the irregular way this investigation is
> proceeding, including unusual arrangements with advisers who work with our
> competitors and vocal complainants."

Isn't it typical for regulators to work with competitors of the company
accused of antitrust violations? Who is better positioned to identify abuses
of the market leader? It's regulators' job to assess what about the reports
actually is an abuse.

While I think a lot of this hubbub is motivated by political grudges, I can't
help thinking that we would all be better off if the current generation of
popular computers (phones, tablets etc) somehow allowed third party app
stores.

~~~
gundmc
Android does allow third party app stores though.

~~~
wyldfire
Well, yes, for device manufacturers. But what if users could choose their own?
Or what if multiple were permitted?

~~~
duxup
You personally can install F-Driod.

I'm not sure that third party app stores would really address much at all as
far as the nature of Google's competitiveness.

~~~
Middleclass
It is incomplete because Google Play Services contains functionality closed to
developers, unrelated to the free online services provided by Google.

Your point stands, nevertheless.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/mDQdM](https://archive.md/mDQdM)

------
new_realist
“Google hasn’t agreed to a waiver that would give state attorneys general
documents obtained by the U.S. Justice Department for its own investigation,
the Journal said, citing a “person familiar with the situation.”“

------
creaghpatr
Google got to be feeling the heat now that their guy and his #2 had to recuse
from the investigation.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-departments-
antitrust-c...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-departments-antitrust-
chief-removes-himself-from-google-probe-11580822369)

------
zadkey
Anyone have an outlined version of the article?

Private browsing isn't cutting it for some reason.

------
mmoez
History is repeating itself: IBM, then MS, and now Google.

------
lwb
Meta: Do the majority of people on HN have WSJ subscriptions? Or is there some
other way to view these articles? I see something from the WSJ get to the
front page at least once every couple weeks. My gut tells me that either
people just only read & comment on the first paragraph, or they're reading the
articles for free some other way.

~~~
dang
Users nearly always post workarounds in the threads. You can find such a link
in this thread. Admittedly it can be a pain to look for, once many comments
have appeared.

------
factchecker01
The Motto that comes to mind is DONT BE EVIL

~~~
aSplash0fDerp
Or how about google going off script. If they're not careful, they'll get a
sequel using an updated plot twist.

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/)

------
toron123
Sad that UE allowed google monopoly to grown in Europe, instead of limiting
its access to the market as much as possible and allowing European competition
to grown like China did.

~~~
jariel
No, it's not sad at all that the EU didn't 'limit Google's access'. What's sad
is that Europe can't compete in these things on it's own.

Now - you could make a strong argument that G shouldn't be allowed to own have
mobile, search, ads, maps etc. which creates altogether another kind of
monopoly, but, there's no need to swing the ball so far as to 'limit access'.

------
Ohn0
Is it just me or is it kind of ironic that another headline today involves
Google's sort of fast and loose behavior related to being the dominant browser
on the market?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I doubt it's a coincidence. I think people are just primed to upvote similar
stories like that; it's not like they're both on the front page of CNN or even
the Register.

