Connect with us

Published

on

Google CEO Sundar Pichai testifies before the House Judiciary Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on December 11, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

A federal judge narrowed the case that states and the Department of Justice can make in the antitrust trial against Google beginning in September, according to a newly-released decision.

It’s a significant win for Google, though it will still need to face other claims brought by the enforcers when the trial begins September 12.

D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta granted, in part, Google’s motion for summary judgment in the cases brought by the Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general. The cases both alleged that Google illegally maintained a monopoly by cutting off rivals from search distribution channels.

While the judge mostly allowed that shared argument from the enforcers to move forward, he notably threw out the states’ claim that Google unfairly hurt search rivals like Yelp and Tripadvisor through the design of search results pages that lowered their visibility.

Mehta also narrowed the DOJ’s case to remove arguments over certain agreements Google made for its Android mobile operating system, Google Assistant and internet of things devices. He also removed arguments pertaining to how Google managed its Android Open Source Project. After Google filed the motion on summary judgement against those portions of the suit, the DOJ chose not to offer an opposition on those particular points, the filing notes.

Mehta denied Google’s motion for summary judgement on both enforcers’ claims that Google used exclusive dealing arrangements to violate anti-monopoly law, writing, “There remain genuine disputes of material fact that warrant a trial.”

As for the states’ claims about Google’s alleged anticompetitive behavior around its search ad tool SA360, Mehta wrote that there also remains a “genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the anticompetitive effect of Google’s disparate development of SA360’s ad-buying features,” meaning that claim is allowed to move forward.

The DOJ and a bipartisan group of AGs from 38 states and territories, led by Colorado and Nebraska, filed similar but separate antitrust suits against Google in 2020. Though they are separate complaints, they were combined for pretrial purposes, such as discovery of evidence.

The DOJ’s complaint focused on the ways Google allegedly used exclusionary contracts to tie up important channels to distribute search engines. In doing so, the agency alleged, Google maintained its monopoly power by denying rivals the chance to reach a similar scale and challenge its dominance.

The coalition of states made similar arguments but added additional points that aimed to address core arguments that Google’s longtime opponents have made against the tech giant.

In addition to the allegedly exclusionary contracts for search distribution, the states alleged that Google also violated antitrust law through its product to buy search ads and the way it designed its search results pages.

The states will still be allowed to bring claims that Google used its search ad product to disadvantage advertisers by not allowing them interoperate between its own tools and competitors’ to buy general search ads. But they will no longer be able to bring the claim that Google harmed competition by designing its search results to push down search engine competitors’ results, the judge decided.

That part of the complaint was most similar to the focus of a Federal Trade Commission investigation that closed a decade ago. The FTC decided to close the investigation without charges after probing whether the company gave its own content on its search results page an unfair advantage at rivals’ expense. But The Wall Street Journal later revealed that FTC staff had recommended filing suit against Google in connection to the search bias allegations, concluding that “conduct has resulted—and will result—in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets.”

The judge’s decision to throw out the states’ claims of search result bias is a blow to companies like Yelp, which have fought for more than a decade to have regulators around the world challenge the webpage design of Google’s search results.

“We appreciate the Court’s careful consideration and decision to dismiss claims regarding the design of Google Search,” Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, said in a statement. “Our engineers build Search to provide the best results and help you quickly find what you’re looking for. People have more ways than ever to access information, and they choose to use Google because it’s helpful. We look forward to showing at trial that promoting and distributing our services is both legal and pro-competitive.”

“I am pleased that the multistate attorneys general lawsuit challenging Google’s monopoly in the search engine market and search advertising will proceed to trial in September,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement. “We will continue to evaluate how to best press forward and establish Google’s pattern of illegal conduct that harms consumers and competition.”

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This story is developing. Check back for updates.

Continue Reading

Technology

Week in review: The Nasdaq’s worst week since April, three trades, and earnings

Published

on

By

Week in review: The Nasdaq's worst week since April, three trades, and earnings

Continue Reading

Technology

Too early to bet against AI trade, State Street suggests 

Published

on

By

Too early to bet against AI trade, State Street suggests 

Momentum and private assets: The trends driving ETFs to record inflows

State Street is reiterating its bullish stance on the artificial intelligence trade despite the Nasdaq’s worst week since April.

Chief Business Officer Anna Paglia said momentum stocks still have legs because investors are reluctant to step away from the growth story that’s driven gains all year.

“How would you not want to participate in the growth of AI technology? Everybody has been waiting for the cycle to change from growth to value. I don’t think it’s happening just yet because of the momentum,” Paglia told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” earlier this week. “I don’t think the rebalancing trade is going to happen until we see a signal from the market indicating a slowdown in these big trends.”

Paglia, who has spent 25 years in the exchange-traded funds industry, sees a higher likelihood that the space will cool off early next year.

“There will be much more focus about the diversification,” she said.

Her firm manages several ETFs with exposure to the technology sector, including the SPDR NYSE Technology ETF, which has gained 38% so far this year as of Friday’s close.

The fund, however, pulled back more than 4% over the past week as investors took profits in AI-linked names. The fund’s second top holding as of Friday’s close is Palantir Technologies, according to State Street’s website. Its stock tumbled more than 11% this week after the company’s earnings report on Monday.

Despite the decline, Paglia reaffirmed her bullish tech view in a statement to CNBC later in the week.

Meanwhile, Todd Rosenbluth suggests a rotation is already starting to grip the market. He points to a renewed appetite for health-care stocks.

“The Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund… which has been out of favor for much of the year, started a return to favor in October,” the firm’s head of research said in the same interview. “Health care tends to be a more defensive sector, so we’re watching to see if people continue to gravitate towards that as a way of diversifying away from some of those sectors like technology.”

The Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund, which has been underperforming technology sector this year, is up 5% since Oct. 1. It was also the second-best performing S&P 500 group this week.

Disclaimer

Continue Reading

Technology

People with ADHD, autism, dyslexia say AI agents are helping them succeed at work

Published

on

By

People with ADHD, autism, dyslexia say AI agents are helping them succeed at work

Neurodiverse professionals may see unique benefits from artificial intelligence tools and agents, research suggests. With AI agent creation booming in 2025, people with conditions like ADHD, autism, dyslexia and more report a more level playing field in the workplace thanks to generative AI.

A recent study from the UK’s Department for Business and Trade found that neurodiverse workers were 25% more satisfied with AI assistants and were more likely to recommend the tool than neurotypical respondents.

“Standing up and walking around during a meeting means that I’m not taking notes, but now AI can come in and synthesize the entire meeting into a transcript and pick out the top-level themes,” said Tara DeZao, senior director of product marketing at enterprise low-code platform provider Pega. DeZao, who was diagnosed with ADHD as an adult, has combination-type ADHD, which includes both inattentive symptoms (time management and executive function issues) and hyperactive symptoms (increased movement).

“I’ve white-knuckled my way through the business world,” DeZao said. “But these tools help so much.”

AI tools in the workplace run the gamut and can have hyper-specific use cases, but solutions like note takers, schedule assistants and in-house communication support are common. Generative AI happens to be particularly adept at skills like communication, time management and executive functioning, creating a built-in benefit for neurodiverse workers who’ve previously had to find ways to fit in among a work culture not built with them in mind.

Because of the skills that neurodiverse individuals can bring to the workplace — hyperfocus, creativity, empathy and niche expertise, just to name a few — some research suggests that organizations prioritizing inclusivity in this space generate nearly one-fifth higher revenue.

AI ethics and neurodiverse workers

“Investing in ethical guardrails, like those that protect and aid neurodivergent workers, is not just the right thing to do,” said Kristi Boyd, an AI specialist with the SAS data ethics practice. “It’s a smart way to make good on your organization’s AI investments.”

Boyd referred to an SAS study which found that companies investing the most in AI governance and guardrails were 1.6 times more likely to see at least double ROI on their AI investments. But Boyd highlighted three risks that companies should be aware of when implementing AI tools with neurodiverse and other individuals in mind: competing needs, unconscious bias and inappropriate disclosure.

“Different neurodiverse conditions may have conflicting needs,” Boyd said. For example, while people with dyslexia may benefit from document readers, people with bipolar disorder or other mental health neurodivergences may benefit from AI-supported scheduling to make the most of productive periods. “By acknowledging these tensions upfront, organizations can create layered accommodations or offer choice-based frameworks that balance competing needs while promoting equity and inclusion,” she explained.

Regarding AI’s unconscious biases, algorithms can (and have been) unintentionally taught to associate neurodivergence with danger, disease or negativity, as outlined in Duke University research. And even today, neurodiversity can still be met with workplace discrimination, making it important for companies to provide safe ways to use these tools without having to unwillingly publicize any individual worker diagnosis.

‘Like somebody turned on the light’

As businesses take accountability for the impact of AI tools in the workplace, Boyd says it’s important to remember to include diverse voices at all stages, implement regular audits and establish safe ways for employees to anonymously report issues.

The work to make AI deployment more equitable, including for neurodivergent people, is just getting started. The nonprofit Humane Intelligence, which focuses on deploying AI for social good, released in early October its Bias Bounty Challenge, where participants can identify biases with the goal of building “more inclusive communication platforms — especially for users with cognitive differences, sensory sensitivities or alternative communication styles.”

For example, emotion AI (when AI identifies human emotions) can help people with difficulty identifying emotions make sense of their meeting partners on video conferencing platforms like Zoom. Still, this technology requires careful attention to bias by ensuring AI agents recognize diverse communication patterns fairly and accurately, rather than embedding harmful assumptions.

DeZao said her ADHD diagnosis felt like “somebody turned on the light in a very, very dark room.”

“One of the most difficult pieces of our hyper-connected, fast world is that we’re all expected to multitask. With my form of ADHD, it’s almost impossible to multitask,” she said.

DeZao says one of AI’s most helpful features is its ability to receive instructions and do its work while the human employee can remain focused on the task at hand. “If I’m working on something and then a new request comes in over Slack or Teams, it just completely knocks me off my thought process,” she said. “Being able to take that request and then outsource it real quick and have it worked on while I continue to work [on my original task] has been a godsend.”

Continue Reading

Trending