> I don't think that's abusing their monopoly, it's acknowledging that they are a monopoly and so they should be held accountable as a wholistic entity. The re

> I don't think that's abusing their monopoly, it's acknowledging that they are a monopoly and so they should be held accountable as a wholistic entity. The reason it would be abusing their monopoly is that Firefox and Edge private mode browsers would not get the same treatment. Google Analytics would still be active for them in private mode. The only ways out for parties here are: * Accept the way technology works, that browsers are separate from code that runs on websites, and acknowledge that users can be tracked regardless of what their browser chooses to do * Mandate that Google devise a way to stop tracking for all browsers in private mode (not a technically possible solution; judicial overreach), or just for Google Chrome (possible; but amplifies their monopoly because it would be a privacy incentive for users to switch to Chrome, a Google product; is also judicial overreach) * Mandate that browsers have a standard way to indicate to websites that they do not want to "be tracked" and websites must respect that (and I don't have to tell you that this one is judicial overreach :) ) So, that's why I say the only way forward that makes sense for this case is for the plaintiffs to drop it. There's no acceptable judicial recourse for them here. They can lobby the legislature if they want to make it mandatory that ad networks respect the abandoned Do-Not-Track header.