Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
As the Google antitrust trial commences, the DOJ argues Google created an Ad tech monopoly.
Federal prosecutors are pursuing the breakup of Google's multibillion-dollar online advertising division, claiming that its monopolistic influence is detrimental to both advertisers and publishers.
The second antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice of Department against Google commenced on Monday in a Virginia courtroom, with federal prosecutors focusing on the company's profitable role as an intermediary in the online advertising market. This case may prove advantageous for prominent news organizations such as Gannett, News Corp., the Guardian, and The Washington Post. These entities pay Google a portion of their revenue for facilitating advertisements on their websites, and many have faced financial challenges in the digital ad era. Additionally, Google's competitors in this field, including Meta and Amazon, could benefit if the outcome is unfavorable for Google.
U.S. officials have aggressively pursued Big Tech companies over the last few years, but Google is the only one of the group to end up on trial.
In August, a judge determined that Google possessed a monopoly in the realm of internet search, representing the most significant antitrust decision in the technology sector since the legal action taken against Microsoft over two decades ago. Currently, Google is contesting allegations that its advertising operations have functioned as a monopoly, resulting in increased advertising costs for clients.
Google is now directing its attention towards its advertising tools, integral to the company's $200 billion digital advertising sector. The government alleges that Google has breached Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which are designed to prevent anticompetitive practices. The Department of Justice will contend that Google has effectively secured publishers and advertisers to its offerings, compelling websites to create alternative solutions. A coalition of states, comprising California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, has joined the lawsuit.
Over the years, Google’s advertising operations have faced significant criticism due to the company's involvement in various aspects of the market, including purchasing, selling, and managing an ad exchange. This multifaceted role provides Google with distinct insights and possible advantages. In its original lawsuit, the Department of Justice referenced internal communications from a Google advertising executive, who likened the company's control over multiple facets of the ad-selling process to a scenario where "Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE," alluding to the New York Stock Exchange.
The issue at hand concerns the operational framework of Google's advertising product portfolio. Should the Department of Justice prevail, it aims to enforce the divestiture of, at the very least, the Google Ad Manager suite (GAM). This platform enables brands to design and oversee advertising units, monitor advertising campaigns, and allows publishers to sell their advertising inventory.
In the initial antitrust litigation, the court determined that Google breached Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits monopolistic practices. Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia concurred with the Department of Justice, which contended that Google has preserved its share of the general search market by establishing significant barriers to entry and a feedback mechanism that reinforced its supremacy. "Google operates as a monopolist and has engaged in actions to uphold its monopoly," Mehta stated.
The Department of Justice intends to summon YouTube CEO Neal Mohan to provide live testimony. Mohan previously served as vice president at DoubleClick prior to its acquisition. Following its integration into Google's advertising technology framework, DoubleClick's technology allegedly enabled Google to mandate that publishers utilize all of its tools to access any specific service, thereby restricting their ability to employ competing services in certain aspects of the online advertising purchasing process, according to the agency's claims.
Google has indicated that it might summon Nitish Korula, the engineering director for Google Assistant, who previously served as a senior technical advisor to Prabhakar Raghavan, the head of search. Additionally, the company has sought testimony from Simon Whitcombe, a vice president at Meta, and has proposed depositions from executives at BuzzFeed and The New York Times.
The case continues.
Google My Business, also known as Google Business Profile, is an online profile tool that allows businesses to put their information on Google for Maps and local search results. While this may seem unimportant at first glance, it’s known that nearly all users search online for local businesses at some point in time.
GMB is the simplest way to create an online presence, and it’s essential for lawyers and law firms that want to improve their digital marketing strategy. Your Google Business Profile is a direct way for local clients to connect with your services more easily.
When someone searches for a local business, a profile will appear listing that business’s hours, description, reviews, phone number, website, and any other relevant details. This profile provides easier access to any information users need to know before using their services, including the business’s website. They can also browse reviews to see what others say about your business to determine if you’re the right fit. This accessible search engine profile is known as a GMB profile or Google Business Profile.
Potential clients are more likely to interact with your business and hire you for services if you have an optimized Google Business Profile. With a bare search result or profile, they won’t see reviews or if you’re legitimate. By completing your listing in your own words, you can choose how you’re represented on a search engine, which can improve your marketing strategy.
To create a Google Business Profile, you’ll want to head to the Google Business website and sign up, typically under the ‘Manage Now’ button. You will enter your business details, including a business category that best fits (such as ‘attorney’ or ‘law firm’). You will want to ensure your address is completely accurate for Google Maps results. It’s better to have an official website established to link for credibility.
Some businesses may already have a basic Google Business Profile created automatically. You can find out if you have an existing profile by searching for your business on Google. You can edit this existing profile or create a new one.
A Google Business Profile is only as helpful as the effort put into it. Optimizing your Google Business Profile can boost your search ranking and draw in more clients. GMB optimization is one of the key strategies of local SEO for attorneys.
Photographs of your practice, your attorney team, and the building exterior can help users locate your practice in person. Google can provide occasional street photos of the location, but professional pictures of your practice's exterior and interior can make a difference in prestige and brand trust.
Fill out as much of the Google Business Profile as you can. You’ll want to make sure any addresses, phone numbers, website URLs, and business categories are up to date and as specific as possible, including any business hours you may operate by. Clients don’t want to look up your hours and find out they’re inaccurate! You can even add specific details such as ‘women-led’ or ‘veteran-owned’ to make your firm stand out among other profiles.
Encourage clients to leave reviews if they’re satisfied with your business. It may seem like a desperate measure, but a simple front desk sign or business card with review information can make all the difference. The more reviews your profile receives, the more potential clients know about the quality of services you offer. Additionally, responding to any reviews you get, good or bad, can improve the quality of your business profile.
On a Google Business Profile, interested users can ask questions about your law firm. Answering these is a great way to show that you’re dedicated to your business and online presence. It also makes things easier for potential clients.
Users can also send messages directly to a business profile. Responding in a timely manner can really boost confidence in your services.
If your law firm or legal services has a logo, include it in the photo section of your business profile, as it can add prestige and professionalism. If you do not have a professional logo, it may be time to consider creating or commissioning one to establish your brand further.
A digital marketing agency or SEO firm can help you optimize your law firm’s Google profile to its fullest potential if you aren’t technologically savvy. Filling out a profile is a simple process, but it’s always a smart move to hire a professional if you’re uncertain.
Google My Business or a Google Business Profile is a great way for attorneys and law firms to optimize their online presence in a quick, simple way. Be as specific and up-to-date as possible about your business, its services, and hours for a better chance to draw in more local clients than ever before.
From (https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2024/01/lawyer-seo-how-your-firm-can-successfully-rank-on-google/) with the anchor Google Business Profile for Law Firms
On Wednesday, an Austrian advocacy group, noyb.eu, filed a complaint with France's data protection watchdog in which it claimed Google has breached an EU court ruling by sending unsolicited advertising emails directly to Gmail users’ inboxes.
The group argued that the Alphabet unit, whose revenues stem primarily from online advertising, should ask users of Gmail for consent prior to sending them direct marketing emails.
Noyb.eu said that, although Google’s ad emails look like typical emails, they include the word “Ad” on the left-hand side and are not dated.
In a comment, Romain Robert, programme director at noyb.eu, said, "It's as if the postman was paid to remove the ads from your mailbox and put his own instead.”
Noyb.eu is an advocacy group founded by Austrian privacy activist and lawyer Max Schrems.
[ymal]
On Wednesday, Australia’s highest court overturned a ruling that found tech giant Google to have engaged in defamation by providing a link to a disputed article.
The High Court of Australia’s seven-judge panel voted 5-2 to dismiss a previous finding that Google played a part in publishing the article by acting as a “library”. The court has now ruled that Google had no active role.
"The Underworld article was not written by any employee or agent of [Google]," two of the panel judges said in Wednesday's ruling.
"It was written by a reporter with no connection to the appellant, and published by an independent newspaper over which the appellant had no control or influence."
Google "does not own or control the internet", they said.
The case relates to an article from 2004 in which it is said that a criminal defence lawyer had allegedly acted unprofessionally and became a “confidant” of criminals.
According to the judgement, the lawyer, George Defteros, came across a link to the article when he Google searched his name in 2016.
Defteros had Google remove the article and sued the tech giant, with the court initially finding Google to be the publisher and ordering it to pay him A$40,000. However, Google appealed the judgement, leading to Wednesday's decision.
Google is set to face a trial in London over an estimated £920 million ($1.1 billion) damages claim after a court gave the go-ahead to a lawsuit that claims the tech giant overcharged 19.5 million customers for app store purchases.
The class action was certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on Monday. It claims Google abused its dominant position by charging up to 30% commission on popular apps on its Play Store since October 2015. The apps include Roblox, Candy Crush Saga, and dating app Tinder.
Recently, there has been a big push by regulators, rivals, and consumers to rein in the power of Big Tech. Across the globe, lawsuits have been filed against big names such as Google and Apple over alleged anti-competitive behaviour.
DOJ Argues Google Created Ad Tech Monopoly - September 2024 trial begins
[ymal]
Online dating service company Match Group, which owns Tinder, sued Alphabet Inc’s Google on Monday, claiming the move was a “last resort” to prevent Tinder, as well as its other apps, from being removed from the Play Store amid a disagreement over Match Group being expected to pay up to 30% of their sales to the tech giant.
Google claims Match was attempting to avoid paying for the significant value it receives. However, Match’s lawsuit follows other cases by several US state attorneys general, Epic Games, and other plaintiffs who believe Google is guilty of anticompetitive conduct.
Match accuses Google of violating federal and state antitrust laws and seeks to block such behaviour by the tech giant.
"Like any business, we charge for our services, and like any responsible platform, we protect users against fraud," Google commented.
Google-owned Fitbit has been hit with a class-action lawsuit that claims its smartwatches are prone to overheating and burning their wearers. This suit includes several devices that were not part of a recent product recall by the company.
The class-action lawsuit filed last Friday in a California federal court alleges that overheating is an issue in several Fitbit devices, including Fitbit Versa, Fitbit Sense, and Fitbit Inspire. The two plaintiffs are seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought the affected smartwatches.
Back in March, Fitbit recalled over one million of its Iconic smartwatches after reports that overheating batteries had caused burn injuries. At the time, the company said that the issue was “very rare” and only affected this particular model.
The lawsuit claims that consumers experienced difficulties getting refunds or replacements from Fitbit. It also claims that the Fitbit defect creates risk for many people beyond direct users because the smartwatches could overheat and cause fires in enclosed spaces such as aeroplanes.
On Thursday, a Texas jury ruled in favour of EcoFactor, represented by LA law firm Russ August & Kabat, stating that Alphabet’s Google must pay $20 million for violating the energy-management company’s patent rights with its Nest smart thermostat.
The Texas jury found that technology in Google Nest devices infringes EcoFactor’s patented method for automatically limiting energy usage during peak demand.
The startup, which sells smart home energy-efficiency services via utilities, HVAC companies, and broadband providers, sued Google back in 2020 for patent infringement. Google denied EcoFactor’s claims and argued the startup’s patents were invalid.
Following the jury’s verdict, Google must now pay EcoFactor a lump sum of around $20 million.
EcoFactor attorney Reza Mirzaie of Russ August & Kabat said that the company is grateful that the jury protected its “foundation” intellectual property and held Google to account for infringing it.
"The only place in the world that a small-but-innovative company like EcoFactor is on equal footing with Google is inside a courtroom, in front of a jury," Mirzaie commented.
Presently, EcoFactor has lawsuits ongoing against Amazon, Ecobee, Vivint and others over smart-thermostat technology.
In a statement, Washington DC Attorney General Karl Racine’s office said, "Google falsely led consumers to believe that changing their account and device settings would allow customers to protect their privacy and control what personal data the company could access.”
The statement went on to say that the tech giant “continues to systematically surveil customers and profit from customer data.”
The lawsuit cites an article by the Associated Press, published in 2018, that revealed Google was continuing to track the location of users even when they switched off the “location history” setting. Google claimed that switching the setting off would stop location tracking but there was actually a different setting called “Web & App Activity” that continued to track the location and personal data of its users.
In response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Google said “attorneys general are bringing a case based on inaccurate claims and outdated assertions about our settings. We have always built privacy features into our products and provided robust controls for location data. We will vigorously defend ourselves and set the record straight.”
On Thursday, a Moscow court announced it had fined social media giant Twitter 3 million roubles for failing to take down content that is deemed illegal in Russia. The fine comes as part of a long string of penalties against foreign technology firms operating in the country.
Moscow has ramped up pressure on big tech firms this year in a campaign that critics view as an attempt by Russian authorities to exert tighter control over the internet, which they believe threatens to stifle both individual and corporate freedom.
The Moscow Tagansky District Court said it had fined Twitter 3 million roubles — equivalent to approximately $40,000 — for failing to delete banned content.
Microsoft-owned software development website GitHub has also been fined 1 million roubles for failing to take down illegal content and, earlier in the month, Alphabet’s Google was fined 9 million roubles for the same offence.
Twitter has denied allowing its platform to be used to promote illegal content in the country.
