Categories
Business

Shopper focus is finest response to antitrust scrutiny

Alphabet and Google are facing multiple government antitrust cases, but the company believes continuing to serve consumers is a winning strategy.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Alphabet and Google face increased government scrutiny, including an antitrust lawsuit filed in December, the third since October. It could take years to resolve the legal conflict with government regulators. According to Google’s head of marketing, an ongoing focus on the consumer is the best answer.

Google will continue to resonate with its users as the government scrutinizes big tech companies, said Lorraine Twohill, the company’s chief marketing officer, recently at CNBC’s CMO Exchange.

“We are by far the most helpful company in their lives and we must continue to do so,” Twohill said at the CNBC virtual event Thursday.

Twohill said user trust is a “core part” of Google’s DNA and consists of three components. This includes providing accurate and timely information as well as improving data protection and security measures to ensure user safety. Around 200 million users have already passed the platform’s privacy review, she said.

“If we continue to have a close relationship with our consumers and users by being helpful … that is the right answer for me right now,” said Twohill.

Then SVP speaks for global marketing at Google Lorraine Twohill on the stage of Creativity & Technology: Lorraine Twohill & David Droga in the discussion panel presented by Google during the Advertising Week 2015 AWXII on the Times Center Stage on September 30, 2015 in New York City.

Laura Cavanaugh | Getty Images

The government cases allege that the company used anti-competitive and exclusive contracts to ensure a continued monopoly on online search and to prevent competitors from accessing many of these sales search channels.

Earlier this month, the company called the case “a misleading attack” on the advertising technology business while addressing claims the company allegedly partnered with Facebook to set prices and minimize competition.

While government attorneys claim that the tech giant’s business practices are restricting consumers’ access to competing technologies, Google executives focus on the argument of delivering the services consumers want and improving them.

Google’s economic policy director Adam Cohen responded to the recent lawsuit in a blog post which the complaint read: “We shouldn’t have been working to improve searches and we should actually be less useful to you.”

Google isn’t the only big tech company under scrutiny. Facebook has gone through a number of government antitrust proceedings, including a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission last month and a number of attorneys general from 48 territories and states alleging the tech beast used its power to order Eliminate competitor threats when acquiring platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram.

Amazon could potentially face increased government scrutiny under the Biden administration, while Apple’s App Store has also been a focus for potential regulatory action.

With the world’s largest tech companies facing antitrust scrutiny – sometimes intertwined, as in the case of the billions of dollars that Google pays Apple to use as the default search engine for iPhones – it is important not to put them all together, according to Twohill.

“It’s important not to put all of the big technologies in one bucket. We’re all very different, we think and work very differently,” she said.

Categories
Business

Parler accuses Amazon of breaking antitrust regulation in suspending internet hosting providers.

Hours after going offline on Monday, social media start-up Parler filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing Amazon of antitrust violations and calling for an injunction to prevent that the tech giant is blocking access to cloud computing services.

Amazon told Parler over the weekend that the service would be discontinued because “a steady increase in violent content” on the site indicated the company did not have a reliable process to prevent it from violating Amazon’s Terms of Service. Amazon said it would make sure Parler’s data is preserved so it can be migrated to a new hosting provider.

Millions of people turned to Parler after Twitter and Facebook banned President Trump following the Capitol uprising last week. Apple and Google kicked Parler out of their app stores later this week, although users who had already downloaded the app could still use it. However, the app relied on Amazon’s cloud computing technology.

Parler’s complaint was dated Sunday before Amazon suspended Parler. However, the lawsuit wasn’t filed with the court until Monday.

In the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western Washington District, Parler accused Amazon of terminating, rather than just banning, its account – and said it should have been given 30 days notice. It has also been argued that Amazon violated antitrust laws by teaming up with Twitter, a large Amazon customer, to start Parler just as it was gaining broader appeal. It said it had 12 million users and “expects millions more this week given the growth in recent days.”

Parler did not provide direct evidence that Amazon and Twitter coordinated the response. Instead, it cited a December press release announcing a multi-year strategic partnership between Amazon and Twitter, and cited Twitter’s own challenges in monitoring the content.

Parler said losing Amazon’s services would be a “death knell,” although other platforms popular with far-right and conspiracy theorists, such as Gab and 8chan, have managed to bounce back after being canceled by hosting providers.

David J. Groesbeck, a sole intellectual property attorney based in Olympia, Washington, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Parler. Amazon didn’t respond to an instant request for comment.

Categories
Business

China Opens Antitrust Investigation Into Alibaba

“This is an important step in strengthening anti-monopoly oversight on the Internet,” said the article posted on the newspaper’s website Thursday morning. “This will have a positive impact on regulating an orderly sector and promoting long-term healthy development of platforms.”

Political insiders and investors in China have speculated for years that national leader Xi Jinping would be tempted to crack down on Alibaba and Mr. Ma. They feared that their influence could increasingly offend the Communist Party and undermine control over capital markets and the Internet. However, until recently, Chinese regulators had been cautious.

Two recent party leadership meetings indicated that Mr. Xi was considering action.

The Politburo, a council of the party’s top 25 officials that meets every month or so, called for stronger anti-monopoly efforts at its meeting this month, although the official statement from the meeting did not identify any company or sector. This call was followed a few days later by an even clearer demand from the party leadership’s annual meeting on economic policy, which suggested that companies with Internet platforms would be subject to closer scrutiny.

The Chinese government “supports the innovative development of platform companies and the improvement of their international competitiveness,” read the official summary of the meeting. “At the same time, the development must be regulated by law and the digital rules improved.”

The supervisory authorities should “take decisive action against monopolies and inappropriate competitive behavior”, it says in the summary of the meeting.

Mr Ma’s remarks on financial regulation, held at a conference in Shanghai in October, appear to have helped catalyze the official backlash against Ant and Alibaba.

“If you are a rich man in Chinese culture and have very strong economic power and social influence, you are politically dangerous and you need to be very restrained for security reasons,” said Gary Liu, an independent economist in Shanghai.

People in China see Mr. Ma and Ant as the main beneficiaries of the authorities’ cautious approach to regulating internet financing. “Still, he complained,” said Mr. Liu. “This type of person is not respected in Chinese culture.”

Chris Buckley and Keith Bradsher contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Business

Google Denies Antitrust Claims in Early Response to U.S. Lawsuit

Google said Monday that it had not used its multi-billion dollar deals with other major technology firms to protect its position as the dominant online search engine. This was the company’s first formal rebuttal of Justice Department allegations that these deals violated antitrust laws.

The filing, a 42-page document, is a paragraph – and sometimes sentence – denial of claims by the government and a group of states that have joined their lawsuit. In the filing, Google says it “developed, continuously innovated and promoted” its search product as part of its mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”.

“People use Google Search because they choose, not because they’re forced to, or because they can’t just find alternative ways to search for information on the Internet,” the company said.

The filing is Google’s most significant to date in its antitrust battle with the Justice Department, but it will not be the last by a long way. The judge, Amit Mehta, said last week that the trial would not start until 2023.

Google has a growing number of legal disputes in the United States. Republican attorneys general in Texas and other states said in a lawsuit last week that Google broke the law to maintain and protect a monopoly on the technology that serves ads over the Internet.

A day later, a bipartisan group of states led by Colorado and Nebraska filed their own lawsuit focusing on the search business and expanded the Justice Department’s allegations in October. They asked to combine their case with the federal lawsuit.

The lawsuits are at the center of a growing legal backlash against the power of tech giants to act as gatekeepers for trade, communication and culture. The Federal Trade Commission and 40 attorneys general filed lawsuits against Facebook this month, saying they stamped out the competition by buying Instagram and WhatsApp, a lawsuit that the company could ultimately resolve if successful. Federal and state officials are also pursuing investigations against Amazon and Apple.

The Justice Department said in its lawsuit that Google had agreements with device manufacturers like Apple, Samsung, and LG to ensure that it was the default search engine on their phones. This pole position is powerful and prevents competing search products like DuckDuckGo from growing, prosecutors said. Eleven attorneys general signed the lawsuit when it was filed. Other states, including California, have asked to join the case.

The company claims that buying standard shelf space on mobile devices is no different from a consumer brand buying preferred shelf space in a grocery store. It is also argued that it is easy for Apple and Android smartphone users to switch from its search service to that of a competitor.

In its filing on Monday, Google admitted that some of the government’s claims were upheld: True, the company said that some dictionaries classify “Google” as a verb. It admitted that “it started in a garage in Menlo Park 22 years ago, creating an innovative way to search the internet. “

And it admitted that its parent company Alphabet is valued at around $ 1 trillion – but denied that such a claim could be made through Google itself.

A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Categories
Business

Google’s Authorized Peril Grows in Face of Third Antitrust Swimsuit

More than 30 states contributed to Google’s growing legal troubles on Thursday, accusing the Silicon Valley titans of illegally arranging their search results in order to crowd out smaller competitors.

A day after 10 other states accused Google of abusing its advertising dominance and overwhelming publishers, and two months after the Justice Department announced that the company’s dealings with other tech giants were curbing competition, the bipartisan group shared Prosecutors in a lawsuit on Thursday alleged that Google downplayed websites where users can search for information in specialized areas like repair services and travel reports. Prosecutors also accused the company of entering into exclusive contracts with phone manufacturers like Apple to prioritize Google’s search service over rivals like Bing and DuckDuckGo.

This suppression, so the states in their lawsuit, has secured Google’s almost 90 percent dominance in search and has made it impossible for the smaller companies to develop into excellent competitors. Google has been trying to extend that dominance to new venues like home voice assistants, according to prosecutors from states like Colorado, Nebraska, New York, and Utah.

The cascade of lawsuits against Google that the company will fight in court hints at the mounting backlash against the biggest tech companies. This movement seems to be initiating increasingly big changes for some of the world’s most popular digital services.

Critics have argued for years that Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon built sprawling empires over trade, communication and culture and then abused their growing power. But just recently, federal or state regulators have filed major cases against them.

The Federal Trade Commission and 40 attorneys general last week accused Facebook of buying smaller competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain their dominance in a case that threatens to break up the company. Regulators in Washington and across the country are also investigating Amazon and Apple.

In addition, Democratic and Republican political leaders have taken far more aggressive stances towards the industry, including calling for changes to a once sacrosanct law that protects websites from liability for the content posted by their users.

“Our economy is more focused than ever and consumers are under pressure when they are deprived of their choice of valued products and services,” said Phil Weiser, Colorado attorney general. “Google’s anticompetitive measures have protected general search monopolies and excluded competitors, deprived consumers of the benefits of competitive choices, prevented innovation and undermined new entries or expansions.”

The prosecution filed the lawsuit in the US District Court of the District of Columbia, asking the court to combine it with a Justice Department lawsuit in October containing similar allegations. If the court combines the suits, it will expand the scope of the federal proceeding to include a much wider range of allegations about Google’s search business. The resolution of the multiple cases can take years.

Adam Cohen, director of economic policy at Google, said in a blog post that the lawsuit “seeks to redesign search so that Americans can no longer get helpful information and reduce the ability of companies to interact directly with customers. “

“We look forward to taking this case to court and continuing to focus on delivering a quality search experience to our users,” he said.

The company has long denied allegations of antitrust violations and is expected to use its global network of lawyers, economists, and lobbyists to combat the multiple allegations against the company. The company has a market value of $ 1.18 trillion and cash reserves of over $ 120 billion.

Taken together, the three lawsuits make Google a ruthless corporate giant deterring competition across a wide range of companies. It’s a far cry from how Google has portrayed itself in the past (made famous in a company-approved movie, “The Internship”): a good-natured and conscientious organization full of playful nerds.

Google has grown from a start-up in a garage to a technology conglomerate with 130,000 employees. The company that once stated that “Don’t Be Angry” was its corporate motto and was seen as a counterbalance to Microsoft and other industry bullies of the past is now seen as the dominant force of Silicon Valley and one of the companies that carve the tech landscape .

“Overall, this will be a comprehensive study of Google’s rise to power over the past 25 years,” said William Kovacic, former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. “These are tremendous threats to the company.”

The Justice Department and attorneys general have inquired into how Google maintained its dominance in search and advertising technology by entering into deals with other tech heavyweights like Apple and Facebook to seal the markets off to competition.

The lawsuit filed on Thursday focuses on how Google has maintained online search. While Google has long strived to make a directory for the entire web, other companies over the years have developed search engines that specialize in a specific area. Yelp provides reviews for local businesses. Tripadvisor offers hotel reviews. Angie’s list directs users to reliable home repair services.

Prosecutors said Google methodically downplayed these websites in its own search results, often prominently displaying its own competing reviews or services. This prevented any company from creating a broader grouping of specialized services that could challenge Google’s search engine.

More recently, the company has used illegal tactics to expand its dominance to new vehicles for online search, including connected cars and home voice assistants, prosecutors said.

Mr. Weiser said in an interview that they will not be intimidated by Google’s expected army of litigants and will stand up for their defense.

“We have done a thorough investigation and are confident about our case,” he said. At a press conference earlier in the day, he said it was “premature” to discuss certain outcomes for the case, such as how the company could be wound up.

States began their search investigation in late summer 2019, part of a tidal wave of new investigations into the power of big tech that has not been seen since the antitrust proceedings against Microsoft two decades ago.

The Google investigation progressed faster than the other investigations at Amazon and Apple, as rivals like Microsoft and Yelp made years of allegations of anti-competitive practices by Google and publishers like News Corp. European cases against Google and an FTC investigation into Google’s search practices ended in 2013 have created volumes of records and theories of harm. The agency’s investigation closed with no action.

States said they worked closely with the Justice Department in their investigation. They interviewed hundreds of witnesses from Google and other companies and collected more than 45,000 private documents as evidence.

Thursday’s announcement reflects the deep interest of regulators around the world in Google’s signature search product.

In Europe, regulators fined Google around $ 2.7 billion for privileging their own comparison shopping tool over those of independent websites. The European Union authorities also fined Google for bundling its services with its Android mobile operating system. Google has agreed that competing search engines may bid for the default place on some devices.

Gene Munster, longtime technology analyst and managing partner at Loup Ventures, a Minneapolis venture capital company, said he doesn’t expect consumers to give up Google products, but rather that the Google brand will thrive as a company.

“It’s a black eye for the public perception of Google. You are no longer able to present yourself as the company “Don’t be angry”, ”said Mr. Münster. “I think they’re right in the warehouse of a tech company that consumers are more suspicious of today than they were five years ago.”

Tom Miller, the Democratic attorney general of Iowa, who signed Thursday’s lawsuit, reflected the similarities of the case with the federal and state lawsuits against Microsoft. Mr. Miller was a prosecutor who led the states’ prosecution against Microsoft.

Although Microsoft settled the charges, years of litigation from the late 1980s to the early 1990s clearly forced the company to rectify its anti-competitive business practices. He said antitrust proceedings, which could stretch for years in court, could help encourage more competition, regardless of the outcome of litigation.

“Some people argue that if we hadn’t brought the case against Microsoft,” Miller said, “there wouldn’t have been Google.”