Google may have been tried a monopoly twice in a year, but the decision of the appeals of Judge Amit Mehta this week left many disappointed criticism. However, despite those who characterize him as “teflon”, his antitrust work is not yet completed.

The company avoided the most serious punishment floated during the trial – a forced transfer of chrome or android – last week, the court rejecting measures such as overeating. Instead, the remedies have been limited to closer behavioral corrective correctives: limits of exclusivity in distribution agreements, compulsory data and access to syndication for competitors and new requirements to disclose the changes in equipment in its advertising auctions.

The two parties tried to claim victory, the lawyers of the Ministry of Justice claiming that the decision “will open the market”. At the same time, Google insisted that the decision reflected how a rupture would have exceeded the scope of the case.

More fines

At the end of the same week, the European Commission inflicted a fine on Google of 2.95 billion euros, or 3.2 billion dollars, for having abused its domination in online advertising technology. The regulators concluded that Google had distorted the competition by promoting its own exchange of ads, ADX, via its publisher advertising server, familiarly known as “DFP” and advertising purchasing tools, namely Google Ads and its platform on the request, DV360-accusations that echo its remaining antitrust heels.

The Commission noted that the DFP gave ADX an unfair tender advantage and that Google largely announces the request to Adx, by entering rival exchanges and strengthening the central role of Google in the Adtech supply chain.

The Commission has now ordered Google to put an end to these self-reflection practices and adopt measures concerning conflicts of interest in all its pile of advertising technologies, which requires it to present a plan within 60 days. If its proposal is insufficient, the Commission can impose remedies itself, indicating that the divestment of part of the Adtech activities of Google can ultimately be necessary.

Despite this, the broader reaction of the industry was scathing, the temple climbing reflected in the increase in the course of the action of its parent company, alphabet, after the decision, feeding the perceptions according to which the penalties are real. Alan Chapell, from Chapell Associates, who also makes the monopoly report write, argues that he did not approach the underlying monopoly. “It will certainly do nothing to prevent Google from enjoying the fruits of its monopoly while we are heading towards an AI era,” he told Digiday, adding that it will make Google’s head in the sector almost insurmountable.

However, Professor William Kovacic, former FTC and FTC expert in global competition law at George Washington, Washington, DC university, has argued the historical underestimation of driving remedies and their deeper effects, citing the case of Microsoft monopolization in the web browser market there is a quarter of eighteen.

“A certain number of observers have said that the 2002 remedy has proven to be much better than initially expected,” he observed, adding that many think that the 2002 decision led to more innovation in the market in a sector that would have been inevitably dominated by Microsoft otherwise.

Critics have also described the Technical Committee as token, with remedies deemed insufficient to the domination of Google. However, the interpretations of its potential impact seemed divided, with the founder of Prohaska Consulting, Matt Prohaska, arguing that the five -person committee could still prove to brake Google.

Some have asserted the result as proof of Big Tech’s grip on Washington, DC – After all, President Donald Trump qualified European legislators’ attempts to limit Big Tech as an intentionally anti -American – with a lot in the media interpreting the latest antitrust decision as an indication of Big Tech’s new favor with Big Tech with such political players.

Speaking in the context of the decision of judge Mehta, Professor Kovacic underlined the nature “antitrust-skeptic” of the higher levels of the American judicial power, with the decision probably taken with “a clear conscience that their judgment must survive the appeal”, as well as the probability of appeal.

He adds: “I think that the court’s decision on appeal and responsibility will resist an exam, but judge Mehta writes in the context of relatively conservative jurisprudence.”

However, as the phase of remedies of its antitrust ad tech test approaches – it should start on September 22 – Google’s defense team is preparing more.

Numbers to know

• 20%: the estimated reduction in the scope of the workforce3 was implemented at the end of last week.
• 3.6: The number of days it would take to Google to reimburse the fine EC, in terms of income of 2024.

What we have covered

The redefinition of supply paths by the commercial office on the technology of the announcement

The Trade Desk has restarted the advertising technology card – and the training effects are already felt. By reclassifying SSPs as “resellers”, its Kokai platform focused on AI now penalizes their inventory while directions to its own routes: OpenPath and SP500. For buyers, this promises a cleaner food and fewer intermediaries. For publishers and SSPs, this means shrinking payments, losing a lever effect and increasing dependence on the infrastructure of the commercial office. Is this a long-term careful solution for advertising technology disorder, or the rise of another porter?

Heard during the town hall of Digiday Publisher

The publisher of Digiday, on August 22, revealed that the leaders juggled with stable advertising budgets, but a drop in traffic reductions, forcing income by winnings by user. AI reshapes workflows and research strategies, although the results remain mixed. The publishers favor direct offers on open auctions, remain suspicious of the encroachment of the DSP and see the rise of Amazon to make trade more flexible.

What we heard

“I think many of these companies may not like discovery very much.”

– An anonymous source (but well placed) offers a Glib evaluation of companies that seek to find careers in Google antitrust misfortunes with the American government, with pubmatic more recently advertising its trial against Google, joining OpenX in a trend that Magite has not excluded to join them either.

What we read

The head of the announcement of the Taz Patel perplexity leaves

Perplexity’s push in advertising has so far generated modest income while the company is looking at new growth and faces legal battles in mounting, with its advertising and shopping manager, Taz Patel, leaving the company after nine months, writes Trishla Ostwal of Adweek.

Walgreens cuts the internal media purchase team in the middle of the strategic change

The end of Nirvana who was the internal purchasing team? Walgreens dismissed his media purchase team in July, the changes coming while Walgreens refocuses its main retail and pharmacy operations, according to sources familiar with developments.

Roqad acquires the Third Party Databases of Zeotap to obtain one step ahead of the identity in Europe

Roqad’s identity solutions will be combined with zeotap data audiences, for unknown costs, providing an increased scale to two companies that are jointly pursuing the nickname “the Liverramp of Europe”, writes Allist Schiff of Adexchanger.