The Latest Antitrust Case Against Google Is, By Far, The Most Serious
from the gone-too-far dept
There have been a whole bunch of antitrust lawsuits filed against Google over the last few years. The DOJ filed one in October of 2020 that was pathetically weak. That one seemed like it was Attorney General Bill Barr appeasing then President Trump with what Trump hoped would be an election-boosting attack on “evil woke big tech.” Then, in December of that year, a bunch of states, lead by Texas’ Ken Paxton filed another antitrust lawsuit, which we noted got some fairly basic things completely wrong, but had some potential to be legit depending on what was behind a bunch of redactions. That case has plodded along, and the amended complaint filed last year was much stronger than the original complaint and looked pretty damning to us. Then there was another antitrust lawsuit from a bunch of other states.
So, it seems a bit odd for there to be yet another one, again from the DOJ and also with a random assortment of states, some of which repeats allegations from the other antitrust lawsuits filed previously.
However, of all the antitrust complaints filed against Google so far, this one strikes me as the strongest, and the most damning. It’s almost as if the various attempts to rush out half-baked antitrust lawsuits wasn’t a great idea, and maybe they should have waited until they were able to put together all of these details.
This one focuses, like the Texas one, on Google’s position in online advertising, and how (according to the complaint) it has abused its position in multiple ways. Specifically detailed in the complaint are a bunch of things that certainly do seem to raise antitrust concerns: buying up competitors whose independent success would limit Google’s ability to totally dominate the market, taking such control over all parts of the ad stack that it could effectively undercut any competitive efforts and give an advantage to its own ads, effectively buying off Facebook to diminish the thread of “header bidding” which was poised to make the market more competitive, and manipulating fees to take a larger cut for itself.
We have seen some of this in practice. As we noted a year and a half ago when we pulled all Google code from Techdirt, we had to pull all ads with it. Because no matter how many companies there were offering to sell ads for Techdirt, every single one of them backstopped their inventory with ads from Google, and they kept inserting tracking code because of it. And we’d had lots of problems with Google ads on our site. At least from where we sit, there doesn’t appear to be anything approaching a competitive market in online ads. Everything seems to run through Google.
I actually thought after we wrote about all this we’d maybe hear from companies offering non-Google ads. But, none showed up, because I’m not sure any actually exist. And the complaint calls this out:
But competition in the ad tech space is broken, for reasons that were neither accidental nor inevitable. One industry behemoth, Google, has corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising. Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies.
I’ve notably been skeptical of many antitrust arguments. I think people throw around “antitrust” way too freely, and it often makes no sense and does not apply. All too often, failed competitors trot out “antitrust” as an excuse for their own failures to innovate and compete.
But this case seems much more legitimate, and the kind of thing that antitrust law was created to deal with.
And, honestly, the dumbest thing about this is that there’s really no reason that Google should have done most of this. It has a business that has and will continue to throw off so much cash. It didn’t need to corner the entire online ad ecosystem. Stories like these in the lawsuit seem pretty damning:
Google also sought to co-opt what it perceived to be its two biggest threats (Facebook and Amazon) into Open Bidding. In internal documents, Google concluded that while it “[c]annot avoid competing with FAN [Facebook],” it could, through a deal with Facebook, “build a moat around our demand.” Internal documents recommending a deal with Facebook revealed Google’s primary motive: “[f]or web inventory, we will move [Facebook’s] demand off of header bidding set up and further weaken the header bidding narrative in the marketplace.” Thus, for these reasons, Google ultimately agreed to provide preferential Open Bidding auction terms to Facebook in exchange for spend and pricing commitments designed to push more of Facebook’s captive advertiser spend onto Google’s platforms. Google sought to head off Amazon’s investment in header bidding technology with a similar offer, albeit without the same success.
Google also adjusted its auction mechanisms across its ad tech products to divert more transactions to itself and away from rivals that might deploy header bidding. On the publisher side, Google allowed AdX—and only AdX—to change its auction bid by altering Google’s own fee after seeing the price to beat from another exchange.
On the advertiser side, Google first considered outright blocking its advertiser buying tool from buying inventory made available via header bidding. The goal: “dry out HB [header bidding].” When Google decided that strategy would be too costly for Google, it pivoted to a different and more insidious strategy with the same effect.
Google recognized that “instead of stop[ping] bidding on HB [header bidding] queries, we could bid lower on HB queries,” and win the same impressions on Google’s ad exchange instead. No rival exchange was in a position to compete with this strategy because no rival had the scale necessary to compete against the industry giant, especially considering the built-in advantages that Google afforded its own ad exchange and publisher ad server. Google, and Google alone, had control over both the leading source of advertiser demand and the dominant publisher ad server. So, Google programmed its advertiser buying tool to advantage its ad exchange.
Google’s bidding strategy on header bidding transactions proved remarkably effective in stunting the growth of header bidding, but Google still worried that its moat was not fully secure. Google learned that some publishers were using price controls within Google’s own DFP publisher ad server to sell advertising inventory to rival exchanges outside of Google’s closed-wall system, even in instances where Google’s own AdX exchange had offered to pay more for the inventory. Publishers did so for a variety of reasons, including considerations related to ad quality, volume discounts, diversification of demand sources, data asymmetries, or other factors.
When Google identified this threat, it simply removed the feature from DFP and instead imposed competition-stifling Unified Pricing Rules. Under these new rules, publishers could no longer use price floors to choose rival exchanges or other buyers over AdX or Google Ads, no matter the reason. Google effectively took away their own customers’ right to choose what buyer or ad exchange best suited their needs. In doing so, Google once again bought itself a free pass on competition.
This strikes me, again, as the kind of thing we described recently in the “enshittification” post. As Google grew, it brought in “professional” management who was judged on Wall St.’s ever more greedy whims. And the only way to satisfy the beast is to squeeze more and more value out of the system, often at the expense of everyone else.
It’s a shame, given Google’s very public philosophy in the early days, trying to avoid shitty ads and sketchy practices that were anti-user. But, as Cory Doctorow noted in his post this is how things go:
Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.
I still think many of the concerns about Google and things it does are way overblown. But on the ad side, Google has become a problem. It could have avoided this by just competing in the market and providing a better service. But the complaint certainly suggests it gave up on doing that, and started manipulating the market instead.
We’ll see how Google responds to this lawsuit, but, at the very least, I hope that an actually competitive market for internet ads emerges out of this, no matter what happens.
Filed Under: ads, antitrust, doj, online ads
Companies: google
Comments on “The Latest Antitrust Case Against Google Is, By Far, The Most Serious”
And to think, some asshole keeps saying Mike is an overpaid shill who says nothing but extraordinarily positive things about Google. 🤣
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Brought to you by the COPIA institute paid for by google.
Re: Re:
Google is paying the Copia Institute to pay Mike to write articles fairly critical of Google? Seems kinda dumb, to be honest. Almost as though this argument is flawed somehow…
Re: Re: Re:
If a claim isn’t fundamentally, fatally flawed, then you’ll never see the name “chozen” above it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
If Mike was truly trying to separate himself from google he would have do so with the COPIA institute as well. I think it was more him trying to make TechDirt appear independent while the money went to the COPIA Institute.
This shell game with non-profits to avoid taxes is not uncommon and actually not illegal.
Re: Re:
Why? Yes, the Copia Institute receives some funding from Google, but if the resulting content shows plenty of evidence that it hasn’t made Mike (or Techdirt) blind to Google’s flaws or unwilling to point them out, then I fail to see the problem. Really, it’s when articles critical of a given organization get removed or neutered (or become nonexistent) that the fact that the organization indirectly pays the writer(s) becomes actually concerning. And given that the Copia Institute has also been critical of Google at times further suggests that your proposal would be unnecessary and your claimed connection is rather tenuous.
How is that not practically the same thing? This seems like a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Also, he’s not trying to do anything but state the facts as he sees them along with his opinions on those facts. He’s not trying to go out of his way to demonstrate independence; he would have written this even without your (and others’) claims that he’s biased in favor of Google. That it also provides strong evidence against claims of pro-Google bias is just a bonus for him.
Wait, let me see if I understand this correctly. You think that Google is just paying the Copia Institute to avoid paying taxes? I suppose that’s plausible, but if that’s the case, then Google will likely continue to pay the Copia Institute no matter what Mike writes. They aren’t paying for propaganda or anything, after all, but to reduce the taxes that they’d have to pay, so the content produced on Techdirt doesn’t really matter to Google. And since Mike is clearly willing to write or publish articles critical of Google, it seems that this only further points to a lack of influence Google has over Mike’s articles here or any other articles on this site. The content on Techdirt is irrelevant to Google’s purpose in funding the Copia Institute, and Techdirt’s content doesn’t appear to be dependent on who funds the Copia Institute.
Seriously, you’re making your argument appear even weaker than it already did.
Re: Re: Re:
If teh Goog wanted to save on taxes, they’d best jack up whatever they give Copia by some factor and several orders of magnitude beyond that.
Re: Re: Re:
The best part is in the line of Chozen text you quoted: “This shell game with non-profits to avoid taxes is not uncommon and actually not illegal.” So if Chozen is trying to make an argument that Masnick is already doing what Chozen’s favorite people in the Trump administration did… it’s anyone’s guess how he thinks this is going to look damning for Masnick.
Re: Re:
Yes do please continue clarifying your conspiracy theories as if that will make you sound less crazy.
It's worth remembering how they got where they are
Google’s company motto for a long time had been “don’t be evil”, and they stuck to it long enough to make people trust them and want them to stick around. They finally retired it.
It turned out that the motto really had been “don’t be evil… yet”. Which is sort what venture capitalism is about.
The late worm gets the princess.
Re:
You may be shocked to learn that just because you read something on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true.
Don’t be evil (Wikipedia):
Re: Re:
Ah. Thank you for the clarification that “don’t be Evil” was not removed entirely. It merely went from being a headlining principle to a footnote.
Re: Re:
“We didn’t execute the king, he got a job at a factory line.” is not exactly a resounding embrace of monarchy.
The idea that there is in today’s world something that can be referred to as the “ad stack” — like it was some official protocol — makes my head want to explode.
Re:
Yeah, the existence of a technological “ad stack” is one of those things that makes one feel like we are in for the most mediocre of all possible apocalypses.
Re: Re:
Don’t worry. Humanity is multitasking! We’ve got climate, population, fuel, and resource apocalypses under way all at the same time!
And that’s excluding the rise of the AI overlords (q.v. CNet)!
Think about it: If we are being asked to distinguish images of stop signs from images of pedestrians to prove we aren’t computers, perhaps we aren’t ready for self-driving cars.
Re: Re:
No, not a mediocre apocalypse but a banal one
Re:
Don’t even get me started on layer 3.
Re: protocols
Error: invalid_headexp
Please route all requests for head explosions through the API.
Please note protocol documentation not available until logged in.
Please note only head elements under 1 cell can be logged in simultaneously. Please reduce headcell_count before elapsed=10e-10s.
Have a nice spray.
Why not sell advertising?
If you want to put advertising on your website then sell advertising.
There’s no need to go through an agency or third party if you don’t want to.
“Advertising space for sale. Here’s our rates and contact information.”
The advertiser sends you his graphic and his credit card number, you run the ad as agreed.
If I want to put an ad in the paper I just contact them and give them my money directly. Why should it require an agent to sell an ad on a website?
Re:
We tried that. No advertisers are willing to advertise on a site of our size. It’s just easier for them to run through an exchange like Google. And even the rare cases where we’d have conversations, they’d still want to track them through Google’s ad tracking.
So, all roads lead back to Google.
Re: Re:
No offense intended to you, Mike, but I don’t see where you have tried very hard.
I read your website on a regular basis and I have never yet seen anything prominently featured here that says, “We sell ads and here’s our rates and contact information.” (Small print at the bottom, if it exists, doesn’t count.)
Why not emulate the roadside billboards? “Your ad can be here.”
Maybe consider getting a commission ad salesman on the job if you don’t want to have to beat the drum yourself. “You get ten percent of the gross of any ad you sell on this website. Good luck.” Ninety percent of anything he brings in is better than one hundred percent of nothing at all and that wouldn’t require any effort on your part past getting the salesman signed up in the first place.
Newspapers, tv stations and radio stations have advertising departments for a reason.
Re: Re: Re:
Therein lies the problem: Newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations aren’t websites/blogs.
Re: Re: Re:
We tried. Very hard. We’ve gone direct to various companies. We’ve posted about it on the blog. Literally ZERO uptake.
Lol. We’ve had 3 such sales people over the years. And, 10% commission is NOWHERE near what they demand. They demand MUCH HIGHER, plus a base. And, out of those 3 separate sales people… they sold… nothing. Literally nothing.
Perhaps I know what I’m talking about. The online ad sales market is not what you think it is.
As I said, we’ve tried that. But the market for a small, niche focused tech policy blog… is not that big when it comes to ad teams. The kinds of advertisers who you’d think would be interested in Techdirt have HUGE deals… that all run through Google ad tech. And it’s just not worth it to them to do one offs for something our size.
We have heard from the policy/legal folks at those companies who all think it would be great to advertise here. And then they hand us off to the ad buyers… who tell us it’s just not worth their time or effort to advertise here. Or if they do, it has to go through Google tech and tracking.
Re: Re: Re:2
But, Frank, if you can sell any direct ads for Techdirt, I’ll gladly give you 10% commission…
Re: Re:
Could try selling ads direct to your own readers, instead of B2B. Wouldn’t expect it to bring in much, but you never know when a whale power user might drop some cash to make a point :v
More Monopolies
Oh you want to look at monopolies, do you? Check out the following:
Disney
Ticketmaster
Microsoft
ATT
Amazon
Facebook (META parent fools regulators and judges)
Luxottica
AB InBev
Monsanto
Volkswagen
Re:
A few that you forgot but shouldn’t have:
Comcast
Charter
Verizon
T-Mobile
Re: Re:
To Hell with Facebook, what exactly can Volkswagen monopolize?
Re: Re: Re:
They couldn’t even monopolize the diesel cheat.
Re:
What, exactly, is Facebook monopolizing? Be specific.
Re: Re:
Antitrust was established to prevent a company from controlling it’s product from start to finish, right? A movie company like Disney wasn’t allowed to control the means of production, the distribution, and the theaters. Yet today they control ALL of these and more.
Facebook is on it’s way to mirroring Disney with phones, headsets/games devices, Social media platform, ad sales, and data brokerage, back-end web services. YES, that’s how they make money. But that’s also how you crush any sort of competition.
Re: Re: Re:
Just to recap: You think Facebook is either close to, or already is, monopolizing…
wut
wut
wut
wut
wut
wut
You might want to take off your VR headset and check back in with actual reality.
Re: Re: Re: not quite
Anti-trust was intended to keep companies from making competition impossible. You are totally allowed to control production from start to finish, except if it means no one could compete. Which often is not the case.
Re: Re: Re:2
Vertical integration, and its causes and effects, is a pretty fascinating topic, but Facebook isn’t anywhere even close to the kind of classic VIC that runs into antitrust issues.
Re: Re: Re:
I was not aware that Facebook’s hardware division had phones AND game devices.
It flopped the fuck hard even in terms of VR, by a bunch of devs stuck in their homes during COVID. Yes, VRChat is more popular than the Facebook Metaverse.
Ad sales? Facebook doesn’t have the current REACH Google has. Social media platform? Why the fuck was Facebook trying to mirror TWITCH and TIKTOK, then?
Also, back-end web services? You’re gonna have to be veeeeeery specific here, because I know for a fact Facebook doesn’t provide domain registration, for one, and I am unsure if they even do webhosting or cloud services of ANY sort
Re: Re: Re:
Oh! An actual list! Let’s see what you have…
I— wait, what? As far as I’m aware, Facebook has essentially no involvement with phones whatsoever beyond the apps they make for smartphones made by multiple manufacturers with a variety of OSs, and they don’t even have a true monopoly on that!. That isn’t even close to a monopoly, vertical or horizontal!
Yeah, I have no idea what you are even talking about.
First, these are two completely different markets, so no idea why you’re lumping them in together.
And the only headset or game device that I’m aware of Meta/Facebook having any real involvement in at all is its VR headsets (which, by the way, are only “game devices” in the same sense that a typical computer mouse is a game device), and Facebook doesn’t appear to have any monopoly there, either. They may be trying, but they aren’t doing a great job.
Now, this is probably where the argument of Facebook having a vertical monopoly is the strongest, even if still flawed, but still, that’s not really particularly interesting IMO (outside of repairs) given how niche VR still is and the amount of competition in the sphere.
I’m not even sure how you could have a vertical monopoly on a social media platform if you don’t even make any devices used to access the platform, let alone all of them, and as far as a possible horizontal monopoly is concerned, there are way too many large competitors in that industry (Twitter, YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, etc.) for anyone to be reasonably said to have a monopoly in social media.
As the article above suggests, Google appears to have a pretty good horizontal monopoly in that industry, so I can’t really see a plausible argument that Facebook has any dominance in that sphere.
Same thing as with social media platforms. Way too many large competitors for a horizontal monopoly, doesn’t really make sense to have it be a vertical monopoly.
I’m unaware of Facebook/Meta offering this service to anyone else, and a large company whose primary offering is a website being entirely responsible for its own back-end web services seems like it’s just common sense; not sure why anyone would do it any other way.
Or are you saying that these all fit within some vertical monopoly?
Well, “phones” is still out because, to my knowledge, Meta has precisely zero involvement in the firmware, hardware, or OS of any phones whatsoever, so that’s still not gonna work. (And if you mean the app used to view their platform, it’s standard practice for the one making the main service to also make the user app used to access the service, so this is incredibly weak.) I’ve also pointed out how any large company whose primary (at least initially) offering is a website is almost certainly going to provide its own back-end web services, so this is entirely unremarkable.
Going over the others, I mean, data brokerage is so closely tied to ad sales that I honestly can’t think of a single company in the ad sales that doesn’t provide its own data brokerage (if any), and the same goes for social media outside of ad sales. Furthermore, given the size of Facebook’s social media platform, I would expect the platform holder to also internally handle the ads that appear on that platform (if any). Those three kinda go hand-in-hand, at least for any large businesses. I wouldn’t consider that evidence of a vertical monopoly.
As far as headsets/game devices go, I don’t think Facebook actually runs natively on the only ones they actually make, and no software Meta offers that is remotely like a social media platform has had any real traction among users of those headsets, with most preferring to use other services like VRChat. As such, the headsets don’t appear to be connected to any other part of the chain you mentioned, meaning they’re a non-factor. (Heck, even if Facebook offered phones or whatever you meant by that, there appears to be zero interaction between Facebook’s headsets and anything to do with phones at all, so they aren’t even connected to that!)
So yeah, not really seeing how these form a contiguous, entirely self-contained chain as one would see in a vertical monopoly. I certainly don’t see anything on the level of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel, or even something like Apple or, heck, even that one case where Microsoft was sued for bundling a free browser of their own design with their OSs (which was itself frankly a weak case of vertical monopoly). I really don’t see anything anticompetitive or particularly monopolistic about your examples. (And seriously, I honestly have no idea why “phones” is even on that list.)
I seriously don’t see how this even remotely crushes any competition, especially given how much competition Facebook has in every single one of the industries you mentioned and the lack of exclusivity involved in many of them. Heck, they don’t even have involvement in the phone industry at all, so they couldn’t even remotely be crushing competition there since they themselves don’t compete in that arena at all; there could be literally zero players that aren’t Meta in that industry, but if Meta themself is not in that industry, they aren’t crushing competition within it.
Re:
How the hell is VW a monopoly?!
Re: Re:
Also, how the actual seven fucks is Monsato, currently a Bayer subsidary, a monopoly in its own industry?
Maybe in the “shady business practices disguised as agricultural crops” category, but uh…
The government who cried 'Anti-trust!'
The problem is that with the previous PR stunt lawsuits against the company Google has pretty good justification to argue that this one is just more of the same and have that claim be believable even if this time there seems to be some actual meat to the claims, so while this one may be better grounded it’s still going to be more of an uphill battle arguing it in court or the public arena given how poisoned this particular well is.
“buying up competitors whose independent success would limit Google’s ability to totally dominate the market”
Arent these acquisitions pre-approved by the FTC and/or DoJ? I dont see how it could be illegal if it got approval.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: They Lie
What happens is that they lie to the FTC and say we wont do X, Y, and Z. Then they do X, Y, and Z.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Bork
Good maybe the court will reverse all this Burger crap about harm to the consumer which doesn’t exist in the statute and is crap Robert Bork invented out of thin air in ‘The Antitrust Paradox.’
Sounds good on paper but in practice its bullshit because you cant create a separate universe and compare the universe with the monopoly to the universe without the monopoly so its not possible to prove it in court.
Re:
…but dammit, you’re certainly trying. 🙃
Re:
Is that the universe where a public accomodation is also a public house and public housing?
Oh for Christ’s sake! Just mandate that every last Tom, Dick and Harry must use an ad-blocker, and the whole issue goes away. Yeah, I’m advocating for a paradigm change, but then again, I look it like Mike’s “Protocols, not Platforms” scenario. It can be worked out, but it’ll take better minds than the one I possess.
I’m willing to admit that I don’t see it, but are you all willing to admit that just because you don’t see a solution either, that there can’t be a realignment in how we do an Internet, at all? I’d like to suggest that you find a new location to park your head, because your glass belly button is fogging up your vision….
It's not just the ads
To think it is only about the ads is missing the biggest part of the picture – traffic.
The first need of web site owners is traffic.
If you don’t have traffic, your web site is:
1) useless for your own company’s needs.
2) useless to advertisers.
Google is the best source of traffic in the world.
Google should be asking the AT&T execs of 1974 just what they were thinking would happen to them in the coming year (or years, as it turned out). For instance, did they ever envision that after several years of legal battle, they’d themselves would actually broach the topic of breaking up the company?
Might be an instructive conversation, I dunno….
Shadow warriors
Q and A time
The idea of buying competitive companies is not new. In fact it’s been the process of competition for quo millennia!
You try to partner
You try to buy
You go to war
I still don’t understand why some people have such a big problem with this. It’s half the A/B dream of many startups.
Get big or get bought!
Let’s also remember most buyouts, in the last 40 years, end up benefiting the target consumer.
Let’s take a quick stroll.
1979
Visi buys out the primary product of SA.
1980
VisiCalc creates the business microcomputer market overnight with its Apple and CP/M release.
1982 VisiOn supplies IBM with the “killer app”. The PC revolution is born.
Want something more recent?
1993
VocalTec creates a revolutionary packet format for data transmission
1995
Microsoft, Intel, and other buy permanent perpetual rights from VT. Immediately open source the majority of the platform, and codify what becomes VoIP
2004
Cable and Telco companies in the post MCI buy up small VoIP services
2005
Low cost VoIP reaches homes with fixed rate unlimited national calling
Every time the government breaks up something, consumers are hurt.
The Bell breakup brought a standard headset format. But it eased rates that continue to rise. For a service that costs less to offer each year.
Over in the EU shite AT rulings gave us lower cost Windows with missing features. Nobody buys it. The cost of the full Microsoft Windows goes up. The cost of most competitor’s products goes up.
And for all the complaining about the recent T-Mobile merger with (yuck) sprint: prices are the same. Some rates had decreased. Infrastructure upgrades are being completed. And the rate of 5G availability has rapidly increased.
And that’s just it. When your product sucks you cry AT. (Or piracy)
The problem isn’t *just** google here. Or AT. The problem was google held contracts with most sites because they were there first. The Copyright industry had decimated any startups by pushing the largest non-google-served out of access; “pirate” sites.
Let’s keep in mind startups don’t have the money to fight the copyright MAFIA conglomerate.
Google isn’t the reason the little guys aren’t around. The MPA and RIAA and ACE etc are to blame.
When an advert startup makes $10 a day and needs to hire a lawyer to file a reply to a legal notice they are wiped out and fold.
Your literally barking up the wrong tree. The squirrel is behind you.
Breaking up google will do nothing. As we’ve seen with software, telco, transit, and more… eventually everything comes back under one roof again. Be it years, or months.
Nobody denies the Google advert presence. But the problem is any alternative options are cut off from serving companies not under contract.
Destroying current contracts may help a startup get strong enough to compete. Maybe not.
Re:
Let’s also remember most buyouts, in the last 40 years, end up benefiting the target consumer.
Citations desperately needed.
No the two examples don’t count on their own.
Re: Re:
I gave examples.
Mind pointing out a monopoly breakup that had any lasting benefit to consumers?
Hint:none! Not a single example comes to mind
Mike,
You may want to consider filing an amicus brief, given your experiences with trying and failing to run non-Google ads.
Hello,
Thanks for sharing social bookmarking sites. Its helps to fetch traffic to my website.
Thanks for the same.
http://bangzfamilysalon.com/