The Department of Justice presented its road map on Friday to break the Empire of Google advertising technology, which would be the second request to force the sale of pieces of your business within a year.
The government’s comments produced a duration of a hearing by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, who ruled last month that Google had the monopoly on some portions of an expanding system that places ads advertisements. Now you have to decide what measures, known as remedies, you should take to solve your groups.
A lawyer of the Department of Justice said that the Government hoped to ask the Court that forces Google to get rid of the tools used by online editors to sell advertising space, as well as the technology that connects to advertisers looking to buy space. In the original lawsuit, the Government asked the court to force Google to sell the advertising technology he had acquired over the years.
Leaving Google with “90 percent of the editors, for them, frankly, too dangerous,” said Julia Tarver Wood, the main lawyer of the government in the case.
Google lawyers said that a break would not be aligned with a previous legal precedent and the privacy and security protections.
The request of the Department of Justice is the last legal blow for Google, which is also in the middle of a second hearing on how to remedy your monopoly on the search in a federal court in Washington. In that case, the Government has asked a judge to force the company to sell its popular browser, Chrome, along with other measures.
Combined, the two government requests, if they are granted, would probably represent the greatest remodeling of a powerful company by the federal government since the 1980s, when AT&T was divided into multiple companies with part of an antimonopoly.
It remains to be seen if the judges will force a break, seen among the experts in antimonopoly as the most extreme solution.
In the case of advertising technology, which was presented in 2023, government lawyers argued that Google had dominated the mostly invisible technology that offers ads to websites on the Internet. That system runs an auction for the open ads space on a website, such as the news editor, in real time as the page is loaded.
The Government argued that Google had illegally monopolized three parts of that system: tools that websites use to publish their open advertisements, tools used by advertisers to buy it and the software that connected the two sides of each transaction.
Judge Brinkema ruled last month that Google had violated the law to protect his monopoly on the editor’s tools and the software that connects buyers with advertising space vendors, known as an exchange of ads. The government did not prove that Google was a monopolist when it came to the tools used by advertisers, he added.
At Friday’s hearing, Judge Brinkema said he would convene a hearing to determine the remedies in September.
To resolve his groups, the Department of Justice said, he plans to ask the judge to force Google to sell his advertisement exchange, which facilitates transactions between buyers and advertising space vendors.
The Government will also seek the rupture of Google editor’s advertising tools by turning a part of them that executes auctions for advertising space, causing its underlying codification to open to the public. Later, the government wants Google to sell the tools that handle other functions for editors, such as record maintenance.
Google’s main lawyer, Karen Dunn, said the plan would not comply with the legal precedent. Even if the court seriously considers to break Google’s advertising technology, the government’s proposal would be a challenge, he added.
Few buyers would exist for technology, and those that could be “accelerated technology companies,” Dunn added. In addition, important security and privacy protections would disappear by Google.
“It is very likely that it is completely impossible, what they are talking about”, without causing serious problems, he said.
Google you have intread propossed that the Court requires the company to change or abandon subject to the practices the government said it used to cement its power, and said it wouled Take steps to open up its ad auctioning system in war Woodd Woudd Woodd Woodd Woudd Woodd Woodd Woodd Woodd Woodd Woodd Woudd Woodd Woodd Woodd Woodd Woodd Benefd.
