I don't think this article explains it well. Google sells ad space on behalf of the publishers and also sells the ads on behalf of the advertisers. It also runs the auction that places the ads into the ad space. See this graphic https://images.app.goo.gl/ADx5xrAnWNicgoFu7. Parts of this can definately be broken up without destroying Google.
And crucially, there are leaked emails, other evidence that demonstrate (at the very least historical and occasional) corruption of this dual- (multi?) agency arrangement. Among the allegations:
When a media buyer puts $1.00 in on one side of the system, on average only $0.60 makes it to the publisher. In some cases less than $0.50 gets to them.
Advertising is an intentionally complex system so that companies can clip the ticket at multiple stages throughout the process. Google should be broken up, but the whole ad tech system needs to go into the bin if these problems are going to ever get fixed.
Yeah I’m listening to a legal analyst on Bloomberg radio and there’s a lot of detail that’s getting lost under the headline. It’s not yet even clear yet that Google would need to divest from anything in order to address this.
Google can extract as much money as they want from this equation, up to the limit of available capital for advertising. They just need to squeeze more from publishers and at the same time increase click costs. They have been doing both of these for several years.
At the very least the exchange has to be audited. Currently we have no idea whether the prices are a result of natural supply-demand dynamics or whether the exchange keeps artificially pumping the prices with lackluster demand
It's a lot more complex than that. Google has been caught putting their finger on the scale in the auction process. Not not entirely sure how they did it but I believe they were outbidding third party bidders by a cent because they're downstream in the chain.
Decoupling the advertising marketplace from the platform would be a huge win for consumers. It would also help Google focus on products again instead of constantly bowing to the almighty ad dollar.
Breaking those parts away from google absolutely wouldn’t destroy them, over the years I’ve been so surprised from googlers at most levels explaining how much money they make from all their different services. While advertising is absolutely a big one, it’s by no means the only one, and if i understand the situation correctly, the more advertising options that are actually viable for companies will not even kill their advertising business. But big business real doesn’t like competition.
Which part of this diagram is responsible for displaying ads of blue sweatshirt when I say "blue sweatshirt" in a room next to the room where my smartphone is?
Yep. On top of that, it also controls the algorithm. Recently it has been tweaking the algorithm to sell non-relevant keywords to advertisers by making 'exact match' not 'exact' anymore. People have been burning their ad budgets for worthless traffic as a result, and PPC professionals are livid over it with every other post in communities talking about it:
Recently someone even posted a timeline of google starting to hide the keywords advertisers are buying and the increase in Google's ad revenue. Eye opening.
In fairness to Google on this (and I cannot believe I just wrote that) it's common practice to be on both sides like this, and even to have some external exchange in the middle that you have a deal with just so you can claim it's obviously fair.
That entire industry is a horrifying shitshow of sociopathy, at the expense of absolutely everyone else, both viewers (supply side) and advertisers (demand side).
This is necessary now, but it should have been done years back.
Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market.
Google does this for ads. But, with Apple, does the same for app vendors. Amazon does it for all kinds of brands with physical products. Uber does it for taxi drivers and their clients. All of them take a big chunk of the profit while making things more expensive, but they are the only real option to reach clients as they have used tactics to monopolize entire markets.
This should be impossible, because there are laws against it. If it is allowed the future of the economy is one big corporation with all workers working for it, and everybody buying from it. It looks like a scifi dystopia.
I'm confused how this is a monopoly, is it just the "if we define a market as Google ads, then Google has a monopoly problem"? Like defining iOS apps as a market (and somehow failed)?
Even if they play games with the auctions to keep the price up, at the end of the day X company is spending $5 per thousand clicks (or whatever) because they think it's worth it. Google can charge whatever they want, they run the platform, and it's not as if anyone is forced to use them.
I just don't see how you could in the same breath (how the government basically has) that the app store isn't a monopoly, but Google ads are. There's other ad companies, there is no other way to get an app on iOS.
I would love to see a company compete in the ad space with the goal of making ads less intrusive. If ads didn't attack me and cause the viewport to jump and become obscured while reading, my first impression with the products would be better, and the sites the ads are on would get more viewership.
I've always been somewhat opposed to this, because there's already like 10 different search alternatives, and now AI is taking over, which will further weaken their grip.
Google is on top because they do the best job; I use Yandex primarily, but I switch back to google all the time for coding related questions. In terms of advertising, there's billions of views on Facebook/Instagram/X to get, in addition to all the other sites. I get they're a big player, but I worry we're just beating Google because they're down, not because it's good for the consumer.
Kinda surprised. Google's core business is advertising. Some vertically integrated aux services (like chrome) feel ripe for antitrust, but I wasn't expecting ads themselves. What is Google without ads?
First, let me say I'm glad the FTC is going after monopolies. True capitalism requires competition, not massive corporations.
That said, I feel like going after Big Tech is a massive misuse of resources. Not because it's not a monopoly (it is), but because there's a far more important monopoly that should be broken up: healthcare insurance.
Something like 7 corporations dominate 70% of the healthcare insurance market. The AMA had a study last year that concluded these insurance companies are charging monopoly pricing.
This is why Americans are paying astronomical prices for healthcare.
This is IMO by far the most pressing issue. Yet the FTC is seemingly spending all its time going after Big Tech, which has a comparatively lower impact on the quality of everyday Americans' lives.
They should dig into admob while they're at it. They love screwing devs over and have purposely left their email option broken for years now. They'll cut you off even when it's their fault and you'll have no means of recourse. It's a joke, but they have the best ecpm around unfortunately.
Curious to see how Google search holds up over the next few years.
I find myself not using it at all unless I am looking for something very specific such as the website for a company or local restaurants, etc.
And the president is doing a lot of illegal things, and senators are doing a lot of illegal things, why do Google has to pay for it's crimes if not even politicians have to pay for their crimes?
Google really should start floating some plans for splitting itself up. Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up. Some people thought it would all fail, but the companies have done a good job competing and cooperating at the right times.
If Google comes up with the plans, it's better than some antagonist.
Google seems harder to split up than Bell to me. Bell was split regionally which makes sense since each region has it's own wires and can make money separately. Google has the problem that all their products other than adds lose money (or make money through integration with Google adds)
> Things worked out pretty well when Ma Bell was split up
In what way? They all just re-consolidated back into monopolies. I have one choice of telecom provider in my location: if I don’t like Xfinity, I get to eat shit. At least Ma Bell had to get the government’s permission to raise prices; frankly, I’d prefer having that back.
The market is being unfairly defined based on how things worked decades ago instead of looking at the modern landscape. Tech evolved rapidly and the way things worked decades ago may not be optimal for the end user as things change.
You're right, but probably not in the way you think.
This probably calls for even stronger consumer protections, since the natural limit of human scalability created something of a limitation as to how large and dominant a company could be.
If the Meta case goes this way too, the ripple effects could be huge. Might affect the bay area, startup scene and a lot of others in ways we can't even grasp yet. All we can do is wait and see..
Happy to see this and hopefully there are some changes. Right now I'm dealing with a crazy Adsense issue and there is no recourse, no customer support and no alternative.
If you think antitrust has anything to do with why it isn't profitable for a company at Google scale to pay a human being for every one of the hundreds of millions of people who use AdSense to have customer support...
Google isn't a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense of the term. Its ad revenue is big because it occupies so much user attention. I actually think many suggested remedies would actually make Google more profitable.
For example, prohibiting Apple-Style search deals would mean that Google gets a smaller amount of traffic, but that traffic would come with zero cost. That could end up being more profitable. A similar argument applies to Chrome or any other customer acquisition vehicle.
The real barriers to making Google competitive are fixable but require a different sort of regulation outside of antitrust.
I mean it wouldn't make sense for it to be more profitable for google if there were no search deals, since otherwise they would just cancel the deal themselves. Clearly they see long term value in blocking out competition even at that high of a price
[+] [-] doom2|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] megaman821|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|10 months ago|reply
The Google ad exchange favored its own platforms, limiting the ability of other exchanges to compete fairly in bidding for ad inventory. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
In limiting the number of bidders, Google inflated the prices for ad inventory. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-26/closing-arguments-giv...
Google engaged in bid rigging where competitors agree on who will win a bid, again to inflate prices. https://www.justice.gov/atr/preventing-and-detecting-bid-rig...
Google entered market allocation agreements to create an unfair playing field. https://www.winston.com/en/insights-news/avoiding-antitrust-...
[+] [-] crowcroft|10 months ago|reply
Advertising is an intentionally complex system so that companies can clip the ticket at multiple stages throughout the process. Google should be broken up, but the whole ad tech system needs to go into the bin if these problems are going to ever get fixed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/augustinefou/2021/02/15/how-muc...
[+] [-] jt2190|10 months ago|reply
Bloomberg Radio April 17 2025: https://www.youtube.com/live/iEpJwprxDdk?si=9WaFIJENUwyIJvpk
[+] [-] coliveira|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] shostack|10 months ago|reply
https://www.adexchanger.com/platforms/google-is-found-guilty...
[+] [-] whatever1|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] riku_iki|10 months ago|reply
its about Display Ads business, which is 10% of Google revenue as per article. So, everything there can be broken up without destroying Google.
[+] [-] brikym|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] TZubiri|10 months ago|reply
Google does search ads mostly, has competition with say, bing, amazon, chatgpt now.
On video ads they have competition with tiktok, netflix (even if they don't do ads I guess), and tv.
Maybe there's specific criteria that have legal precedent or sources, but I don't see it.
[+] [-] 38|10 months ago|reply
https://gizmodo.com/app/uploads/2023/01/6371209cd0cce428b526...
[+] [-] glitchc|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bilekas|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lifestyleguru|10 months ago|reply
Which part of this diagram is responsible for displaying ads of blue sweatshirt when I say "blue sweatshirt" in a room next to the room where my smartphone is?
[+] [-] crowcroft|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] pydry|10 months ago|reply
Not "is it strictly necessary for them to be broken up to prevent them from reoffending"?
100% I would expect them to reoffend. No question whatsoever.
[+] [-] dumbledoren|10 months ago|reply
https://reddit.com/r/ppc
Recently someone even posted a timeline of google starting to hide the keywords advertisers are buying and the increase in Google's ad revenue. Eye opening.
[+] [-] fidotron|10 months ago|reply
That entire industry is a horrifying shitshow of sociopathy, at the expense of absolutely everyone else, both viewers (supply side) and advertisers (demand side).
[+] [-] sieabahlpark|10 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Frieren|10 months ago|reply
Nowadays, many companies backed up by investors with very deep pockets are doing this in all markets: start to buy middle-man companies in a space, it does not matter which one, dominate the market thanks to monopolistic power. Screw the clients making them pay too much, screw the providers paying them too little. Go for the next market.
Google does this for ads. But, with Apple, does the same for app vendors. Amazon does it for all kinds of brands with physical products. Uber does it for taxi drivers and their clients. All of them take a big chunk of the profit while making things more expensive, but they are the only real option to reach clients as they have used tactics to monopolize entire markets.
This should be impossible, because there are laws against it. If it is allowed the future of the economy is one big corporation with all workers working for it, and everybody buying from it. It looks like a scifi dystopia.
[+] [-] ApolloFortyNine|10 months ago|reply
Even if they play games with the auctions to keep the price up, at the end of the day X company is spending $5 per thousand clicks (or whatever) because they think it's worth it. Google can charge whatever they want, they run the platform, and it's not as if anyone is forced to use them.
I just don't see how you could in the same breath (how the government basically has) that the app store isn't a monopoly, but Google ads are. There's other ad companies, there is no other way to get an app on iOS.
[+] [-] nixpulvis|10 months ago|reply
Quality ads would be at a huge premium.
[+] [-] guywithahat|10 months ago|reply
Google is on top because they do the best job; I use Yandex primarily, but I switch back to google all the time for coding related questions. In terms of advertising, there's billions of views on Facebook/Instagram/X to get, in addition to all the other sites. I get they're a big player, but I worry we're just beating Google because they're down, not because it's good for the consumer.
[+] [-] internetter|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] matthest|10 months ago|reply
That said, I feel like going after Big Tech is a massive misuse of resources. Not because it's not a monopoly (it is), but because there's a far more important monopoly that should be broken up: healthcare insurance.
Something like 7 corporations dominate 70% of the healthcare insurance market. The AMA had a study last year that concluded these insurance companies are charging monopoly pricing.
This is why Americans are paying astronomical prices for healthcare.
This is IMO by far the most pressing issue. Yet the FTC is seemingly spending all its time going after Big Tech, which has a comparatively lower impact on the quality of everyday Americans' lives.
[+] [-] throwaway743|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ashu1461|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] 1vuio0pswjnm7|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kemitchell|10 months ago|reply
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.53...
[+] [-] wonderwonder|10 months ago|reply
Anything informational now I use ai.
[+] [-] mattigames|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] xhkkffbf|10 months ago|reply
If Google comes up with the plans, it's better than some antagonist.
[+] [-] adgjlsfhk1|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] newsclues|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Analemma_|10 months ago|reply
In what way? They all just re-consolidated back into monopolies. I have one choice of telecom provider in my location: if I don’t like Xfinity, I get to eat shit. At least Ma Bell had to get the government’s permission to raise prices; frankly, I’d prefer having that back.
[+] [-] charcircuit|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|10 months ago|reply
This probably calls for even stronger consumer protections, since the natural limit of human scalability created something of a limitation as to how large and dominant a company could be.
[+] [-] seydor|10 months ago|reply
you mean, before monopolies?
[+] [-] aprilthird2021|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] owebmaster|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] lupka|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] whoknowsidont|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] robertlagrant|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] aprilthird2021|10 months ago|reply
[+] [-] spacebanana7|10 months ago|reply
For example, prohibiting Apple-Style search deals would mean that Google gets a smaller amount of traffic, but that traffic would come with zero cost. That could end up being more profitable. A similar argument applies to Chrome or any other customer acquisition vehicle.
The real barriers to making Google competitive are fixable but require a different sort of regulation outside of antitrust.
[+] [-] nativeit|10 months ago|reply
Aren’t they? It doesn’t sound like those two interpretations are mutually exclusive.
[+] [-] FuriouslyAdrift|10 months ago|reply
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven...
[+] [-] yoshicoder|10 months ago|reply