4 ms·

I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what outcome the AGs are seeking. Actually, it sounds like they haven't made up their mind yet either:

I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what outcome the AGs are seeking. Actually, it sounds like they haven't made up their mind yet either: > And then the states are going to presumably file a complaint also at some juncture, probably after that. So then we will see what those complaints say, what kind of conduct they allege as being anti-competitive. Is it normal for suits like this to be touted out in public for so long ahead of an actual complaint being filed? Seems like intimidation to me.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
s/intimidation/politics/. The AGs are trying to look good in the press, so they look good to the voters. As far as actual lawsuits go... there may be one, someday, maybe.
RockIslandLine 6y ago
Yes, it's not at all clear what remedy would be effective. Some limit on total percentage of searches, similar to the limit in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that no company can own stations reaching more than 35% of the national audience? That would seem to break google into roughly a triumvirate, but does that actually solve any of the problems in any useful way?
robbrown451 6y ago
"Intimidation" is a pejorative, of course, but I don't see anything wrong with alerting Google that they are risking an antitrust lawsuit if they keep doing things the way they are doing things. I'm not sure I see the need to be so worried about a nearly trillion-dollar company being intimidated.
ponker 6y ago
Telling someone that they are breaking the law and giving them a chance to stop before they are punished is not "intimidation." It's like a cop telling you that you're parked in an illegal spot and that you're going to get towed if you leave your car there.
jedberg 6y ago
The most likely remedy would be to split their ads business from everything else. Make the ads business have to buy search data, and make the search business have to sell search data (and maybe make some money showing ads too). This would allow other companies to buy the search data and also to try and bid on selling ads next to google searches.
pm90 6y ago
> I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what outcome the AGs are seeking. Further down the article this is mentioned: > If the federal government is in fact in the beginning stages of antitrust action against Google, what should we expect to see publicly? > They’ve said that they’re going to file a complaint in the summer, which is really quick. So that would be obviously something to watch. And then the states are going to presumably file a complaint also at some juncture, probably after that. So then we will see what those complaints say, what kind of conduct they allege as being anti-competitive. Or perhaps the federal government doesn’t file a complaint, but they settle. They say, “Well, here are the six things we didn’t like, but you’ve changed your behavior, and so therefore that’s remedied the lost competition and we’re not going to bring a case.” The situation that they are trying to address is a novel one and will likely require a novel solution. The AG's are not business people; their interests are in protecting their constituents from harm caused by monopolistic players in the market. How that is to be done, remains unclear. I imagine the prosecutors will learn more about Google during the course of this process and they will come up with a solution that would allay their concerns. If it looks a bit like bullying, it kind of is. The Government is the other pillar of power and steps in occasionally when its interests (usually things relating to the betterment of society, not always) need to be protected. It has the power to control the destiny of corporations that grow too big and "abuse" their power (whatever that might mean). This is how society works; if corporations operated with unfettered control over everything, society would quickly degrade into a dystopian hellhole (this is unfortunately already happening in the US, see the freeze on minimum wages at the federal level).
- thebean11 6y ago
  > The AG's are not business people; their interests are in protecting their constituents from harm caused by monopolistic players in the market. How that is to be done, remains unclear. Are we just assuming good faith on the part of government now? I personally think Google should be an antitrust target, but I'm not placated by a "don't worry, the government has all of our best interests at hearts" argument. If they want to release a "teaser" of their allegations I don't think we need to buy it at face value. Personally I'll reserve my judgement until they make real allegations.
prepend 6y ago
I think the remedy would be to force them to sell data as a utility. This would help with the anti-consumer ad auctions where there is no information outside of google. It would also make it so they couldn’t put their own services as easily above organic search because organic search data would be available.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

s/intimidation/politics/. The AGs are trying to look good in the press, so they look good to the voters. As far as actual lawsuits go... there may be one, someday, maybe.

RockIslandLine 6y ago

Yes, it's not at all clear what remedy would be effective. Some limit on total percentage of searches, similar to the limit in the 1996 Telecommunications Act that no company can own stations reaching more than 35% of the national audience? That would seem to break google into roughly a triumvirate, but does that actually solve any of the problems in any useful way?

robbrown451 6y ago

"Intimidation" is a pejorative, of course, but I don't see anything wrong with alerting Google that they are risking an antitrust lawsuit if they keep doing things the way they are doing things. I'm not sure I see the need to be so worried about a nearly trillion-dollar company being intimidated.

ponker 6y ago

Telling someone that they are breaking the law and giving them a chance to stop before they are punished is not "intimidation." It's like a cop telling you that you're parked in an illegal spot and that you're going to get towed if you leave your car there.

jedberg 6y ago

The most likely remedy would be to split their ads business from everything else. Make the ads business have to buy search data, and make the search business have to sell search data (and maybe make some money showing ads too). This would allow other companies to buy the search data and also to try and bid on selling ads next to google searches.

pm90 6y ago

> I'm confused about what the remedy is supposed to be, or what outcome the AGs are seeking. Further down the article this is mentioned: > If the federal government is in fact in the beginning stages of antitrust action against Google, what should we expect to see publicly? > They’ve said that they’re going to file a complaint in the summer, which is really quick. So that would be obviously something to watch. And then the states are going to presumably file a complaint also at some juncture, probably after that. So then we will see what those complaints say, what kind of conduct they allege as being anti-competitive. Or perhaps the federal government doesn’t file a complaint, but they settle. They say, “Well, here are the six things we didn’t like, but you’ve changed your behavior, and so therefore that’s remedied the lost competition and we’re not going to bring a case.” The situation that they are trying to address is a novel one and will likely require a novel solution. The AG's are not business people; their interests are in protecting their constituents from harm caused by monopolistic players in the market. How that is to be done, remains unclear. I imagine the prosecutors will learn more about Google during the course of this process and they will come up with a solution that would allay their concerns. If it looks a bit like bullying, it kind of is. The Government is the other pillar of power and steps in occasionally when its interests (usually things relating to the betterment of society, not always) need to be protected. It has the power to control the destiny of corporations that grow too big and "abuse" their power (whatever that might mean). This is how society works; if corporations operated with unfettered control over everything, society would quickly degrade into a dystopian hellhole (this is unfortunately already happening in the US, see the freeze on minimum wages at the federal level).

thebean11 6y ago
> The AG's are not business people; their interests are in protecting their constituents from harm caused by monopolistic players in the market. How that is to be done, remains unclear. Are we just assuming good faith on the part of government now? I personally think Google should be an antitrust target, but I'm not placated by a "don't worry, the government has all of our best interests at hearts" argument. If they want to release a "teaser" of their allegations I don't think we need to buy it at face value. Personally I'll reserve my judgement until they make real allegations.

prepend 6y ago

I think the remedy would be to force them to sell data as a utility. This would help with the anti-consumer ad auctions where there is no information outside of google. It would also make it so they couldn’t put their own services as easily above organic search because organic search data would be available.