4 ms·

I don’t think the point is that it’s fraudulent, remember that this is in the context of the antitrust trial. I think the point here is that they could only do

I don’t think the point is that it’s fraudulent, remember that this is in the context of the antitrust trial. I think the point here is that they could only do that since they have a monopoly. Though I’m not sure I even agree with that. It burns advertiser’s goodwill for sure, but they advertise on Google because it provides them with a ROI, not because there is no where else. This just forces them to tweak their bids more. That’s without weighing in on whether Google has an illegal monopoly on search

Closi 3y ago
Something can be both fraudulent and an antitrust issue. In fact there is probably a specific type of fraud which is just this (at least in the UK), which is "Fraud by abuse of position" The UK legal definition of this would be met if a person/company: 1. occupies a position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person (e.g. operates an auction to tender their online marketing spend?) 2. abused that position (e.g. by putting in fake bids, which only they could do because of their position?) 3. dishonestly (e.g. intentionally failed to disclose or was otherwise intentionally dishonest) 4. intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss (e.g. they intended to raise profits) The abuse may consist of an omission rather than an act (e.g. number 3 can be a failure to disclose).