How big is too big? And when does a company become so big that the government is forced to step in and make it smaller? Politicians have been struggling with those questions for at least a hundred years. But as the latest generation of tech companies has taken shape, the questions are becoming more and more relevant to internet giants like Google and Facebook. There’s a new movement in Washington to break up those companies, whether through a Justice Department lawsuit or an old-school appeal to the Sherman Antitrust Act. It’s a struggle Microsoft fended off in the ‘90s, and it has only grown more urgent in the years since. As Amazon has taken a stranglehold of online retail, Jeff Bezos’ company has started to attract antitrust attention as well, with figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Lina Khan taking aim at Amazon’s cutthroat competitive strategies. If it succeeds, it would be one of the most ambitious government projects in a generation — but success is still a long way off.
The judge just scheduled a 3 PM hearing ordering “principal decisionmakers” for the states and Live Nation to attend. I expect we’ll hear about the status of their settlement talks, and whether at least some portion of the 27 states plus DC pushing ahead will go back to trial Monday.
I’ve been updating it for hours with bits from court documents, blog posts, email fact-checks, even a quick interview with Google Android boss Sameer Samat and Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney. I’m about done, but I still need to parse the new Games Level Up Program and Apps Experience Program...
“The parties expect to submit a revised proposal to the Court by March 4, 2026.” That’s today.
Judge Donato seemed extremely skeptical of the previous proposed settlement during the live courtroom proceedings, particularly because Epic and Google had quietly worked out a new $800 million business deal behind the scenes. We’re standing by for the “revised proposal” now.
I’m at the courthouse in downtown Manhattan, where the DOJ and 40 state and district attorneys general are accusing the entertainment titan of maintaining an illegal monopoly that drives up ticket prices.
The European Commission has weighed in on the November decision to block the likes of ChatGPT and Copilot from WhatsApp, and thinks it violates EU antitrust laws. It’s surprisingly fast for the organization, which called the issue “urgent” because of the risk of “irreparable” damage to competition in the nascent AI industry.
X’s deepfake porn feature clearly violates app store guidelines. Why won’t Apple and Google pull it?
The Justice Department reached a proposed agreement with landlord LivCor to resolve claims that it illegally coordinated rent prices with other landlords using algorithmic recommendations from RealPage. The DOJ previously settled with RealPage, and two large landlords involved in the case.
Google and the DOJ just wrapped their two-week remedies trial until closing arguments on November 17th. Judge Leonie Brinkema is still holding out hope for a settlement to avoid the tricky technical issues of a court-ordered remedy.
That’s what Brinkema wanted to know as the case wound down. She wants the parties to consider what kind of committee should be appointed by the court. “That is part of the key of making whatever the final remedy is work,” she said. “I would be very concerned about any monitor who might have any stake in the outcome.”
Google brought back its technical expert Jason Nieh for a brief response to the DOJ’s rebuttal. Nieh claimed that Wheatland’s conception of how the open-sourced final auction logic would work was new and not technically feasible. Brinkema pushed back, saying that her understanding was that all that functionality is “already there” inside DFP and “all they want you to do basically is open the box.” Nieh said that wouldn’t work since the code is always evolving and it would be harder to stick back together with Google’s system.
If the court only imposes behavioral restrictions on Google, Daily Mail Chief Digital Officer Matthew Wheatland warned in the DOJ’s rebuttal, there would still be a “gray area on our decision making process” to switch ad servers since they’d need to be sure the remedies would have “lasting effects” on Google’s actions.
A court-ordered sale of Google’s ad tech tools could backfire on publishers, the company warned.
We heard more testimony from Google’s technical expert Jason Nieh this afternoon about why he thinks divesting AdX and DFP would be much harder than the DOJ’s experts said. On Monday, the DOJ will bring DailyMail.com chief digital officer Matthew Wheatland in to testify in its rebuttal case, and may add an expert or two.
Former News Corp ad tech executive Stephanie Layser worries that even if Brinkema limits Google’s bad conduct, it will simply find a new way to make things difficult for publishers in ways that will be hard to detect. Layser said she felt like a “conspiracy theorist” about her suspicions Google was harming her business — until discovery in this case.
