A pedestrian passes by the Google office in New York City on Jan. 25, 2023.
Leonardo Munoz | View Press | Getty Images
A month after losing a landmark antitrust case brought by the Department of Justice, Google is headed back to court to face off for a second time against federal prosecutors.
In August, a judge ruled that Google has held a monopoly in internet search, marking the biggest antitrust ruling in the tech industry since the case against Microsoft more than 20 years ago. This time, Google is defending itself against claims that its advertising business has acted as a monopoly that’s led to higher ad prices for customers.
The trial begins in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday and will likely last for at least several weeks. It represents the first tech antitrust trial from a case brought by the Biden administration. The department’s earlier lawsuit was first filed in October 2020, when Donald Trump was in the White House.
While U.S. officials have spent the past several years going after Big Tech, only Google has so far has ended up in federal court. The DOJ sued Apple in March, saying its iPhone ecosystem is a monopoly that drove its “astronomical valuation” at the expense of consumers, developers and rival phone makers.
In late 2020, the Federal Trade Commission filed an antitrust suit against Facebook (now Meta), claiming the company had built a monopoly through acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Earlier this year, Meta asked a court to dismiss the suit. In 2023, the FTC and 17 states sued Amazon for allegedly wielding its “monopoly power” to inflate prices, degrade quality for shoppers and unlawfully exclude rivals, undermining competition.
For Google, the focus turns to its ad tools, which are part of the company’s $200 billion digital ad business.
The government claims Google is in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit anticompetitive behavior. The DOJ will argue that Google locked in publishers and advertisers to its products and that websites had to develop workarounds in response. A coalition of states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee, joined the case.
Google’s ad business has drawn numerous critics over the years because the platform operates on multiple sides of the market — buying, selling and an ad exchange — giving the company unique insights and potential leverage. In its initial lawsuit, the DOJ cited internal communication from a Google ad executive, who said owning multiple sides of the ad-selling process is like “if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” referring to the New York Stock Exchange.
At stake is how Google is allowed to operate its portfolio of ad products. The DOJ, if successful, seeks the divestiture of, at minimum, the Google Ad Manager suite (GAM), the marketplace that gives brands the ability to create and manage ad units and track ad campaigns and lets publishers sell ad inventory.
That’s different from Google’s flagship platform — Google Ads — which is primarily for businesses looking to advertise their products or services across search, websites, YouTube and other partner sites.
In the most recent quarter, Google parent Alphabet reported ad revenue of $64.6 billion, accounting for over three-quarters of total sales. Of that amount, $48.5 billion came from search and other businesses like Gmail and Maps, and $8.7 billion came from YouTube.
The GAM suite is part of the Google Network business, which generated $7.4 billion in second-quarter revenue, or about 11% of total ad sales.
In addition to a potential partial breakup, Google could see a flood of litigation from advertisers seeking monetary rewards if the DOJ is successful. Bernstein analysts said Google could face up to $100 billion in such lawsuits.
In the first antitrust case, the court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which outlaws monopolies. Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the DOJ, which argued that Google has kept its share of the general search market by creating strong barriers to entry and a feedback loop that sustained its dominance.
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote.
Google now awaits its punishment for that case. The DOJ is asking for an extended time frame, until February, to offer remedies, followed by a hearing in April. Google says the DOJ should have already done its homework and should be prepared to offer its proposal in October.
What each side will argue
In the second case, the DOJ plans to show that Google has cobbled together unrivaled power through the acquisitions of companies like DoubleClick in 2008, and by building services that let ad buyers target users across the internet.
The company’s M&A strategy “set the stage for Google’s later exclusionary conduct across the ad tech industry,” the Justice Department alleges. The agency claims Google controls 91% of the market for ad servers, the space used by publishers to sell ads, and takes advantage of its power by unfairly raising ad prices.
The DOJ plans to call YouTube CEO Neal Mohan in for live testimony. Mohan, was previously vice president at DoubleClick before the acquisition. After being rolled into Google’s ad tech stack, DoubleClick’s technology allowed Google to require publishers, in some instances, to use all of its tools to gain access to any of them, meaning they couldn’t use rival services for parts of the online ad-buying process, the agency alleges.
“Website creators earn less, and advertisers pay more, than they would in a market where unfettered competitive pressure could discipline prices and lead to more innovative ad tech tools that would ultimately result in higher quality and lower cost transactions for market participants,” the DOJ says.
Some publishers have been forced to turn to alternative models like subscriptions to fund their operations, the government says, while others have gone out of business.
Google has long fought back against claims that it dominates online ads, pointing to the market share of competitors including Meta. It will argue that buyers and sellers have many options especially as the online ad market has evolved.
Google will also argue that the DOJ’s pursuits would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.
The company says that its ad tools adapt to handle the billions of ad auctions taking place on the internet each day, and that the DOJ doesn’t have an accurate picture of the ad space. Google will also tell the court that it’s always offered competitive rates for customers, who often mix and match advertising platforms.
As it relates to deal-making, Google will claim that DoubleClick and AdMeld weren’t killer acquisitions at the time and that regulators signed off on them.
In trying to prove its case, the DOJ has listed potential testimony from Jerry Dischler, formerly vice president of Google’s ad platform who currently leads the company’s cloud applications. It’s also noted the potential to call on several Google product managers.
Also on the DOJ’s list is Google AI executive Sissie Hsiao, who was formerly a director of global display, video and mobile app advertising, and Scott Sheffer, who is listed as vice president of Google partnerships. The government plans to include evidence from internal Google communications, testimony from publishers, advertisers and companies that tried to compete with Google as well as experts and professors from Stanford and Harvard, filings show.
Google also noted it may call on Nitish Korula, engineering director for Google assistant who was formerly senior technical advisor to search head Prabhakar Raghavan. It also requested testimony from Simon Whitcombe, a vice president at Meta, and suggested depositions from executives at BuzzFeed and The New York Times.
Though the DOJ and Google submitted a list of executives named for potential testimony or deposition, those individuals won’t necessarily be called.
Grabango, a venture-backed startup that was vying to take on Amazon in cashierless checkout technology, is shutting down after it was unable to raise enough money to stay afloat.
“Although the company established itself as a leader in checkout-free technology, it was not able to secure the funding it needed to continue providing service to its clients,” a spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC on Wednesday. “The company would like to thank its employees, investors, and clients for all their hard work and dedication.”
Food tech publication The Spoon reported earlier on Grabango’s closure.
Launched in 2016, Grabango was developing checkout-free technology that uses computer vision and machine learning to track and tally up items as shoppers grab them from store shelves. Will Glaser, Grabango’s founder and CEO, is a longtime Bay Area technologist who cofounded music streaming service Pandora.
Grabango raised just over $73 million, Pitchbook data shows, with its most sizable financing round coming in 2021, before the market turned. In June of that year, Grabango raised $39 million in a round led by Commerce Ventures, with participation from Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund as well as the venture arms of Unilever and Honeywell.
In February of this year, Glaser told Axios the company had plans to go public “in a couple of years at a $10 billion to $15 billion market cap.”
The IPO market has dried up since early 2022, with just three notable venture-backed companies debuting in the U.S. this year. The lack of liquidity has hammered the venture industry, making it harder for firms to launch new funds and for startups, outside of a select few AI companies, to raise capital.
Based in Berkeley, California, Grabango was seen as one of the primary rivals to Amazon’s cashierless checkout offering, called Just Walk Out. Other startups in the space include AiFi and Trigo.
Grabango had inked deals with grocers including Aldi and Giant Eagle, along with convenience store chains 7-Eleven and Circle K. Amazon has targeted its Just Walk Out service to convenience stores and retailers in airports, stadiums and hospitals, among other venues.
Amazon in April pulled its cashierless checkout technology from its U.S. Fresh stores and Whole Foods supermarkets. In a blog post following that decision, Glaser said Amazon’s reliance on shelf sensor technology in its JWO system had “proven to be its Achilles’ heel.” Glaser said Grabango eschewed shelf sensors in favor of computer vision which put it on a path for “widespread adoption.”
“This is a classic Tortoise and Hare parable, but with the players taking on surprising roles,” Glaser wrote. “The much larger Amazon lept to an early lead, but was unable to turn it into a sustained success. The more nimble Grabango, ironically, took the more difficult technical path, and is now reaping the benefits of its patience with a fundamentally more capable system.”
An independent contractor wearing a protective mask and gloves loads Amazon Prime grocery bags into a car outside a Whole Foods Market in Berkeley, California, on October 7, 2020.
David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Amazonsaid Wednesday it’s testing adding mini warehouses to Whole Foods supermarkets as part of a bid to attract more shoppers to its stores and away from other grocery competitors.
The company is building a micro fulfillment center attached to a Whole Foods location in the Philadelphia suburb of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. Once the facility is operational within the next year, shoppers can order items from Amazon’s website and its online grocery service, Amazon Fresh, while browsing Whole Foods and pick it up in store as they’re checking out.
At a press event held near an Amazon warehouse in Nashville, Anand Varadarajan, who leads the product and technology teams for Amazon’s worldwide grocery business, showed a mockup of what the completed facility will look like. A small automated warehouse would be bolted onto a Whole Foods store, where robots fetch and ferry items like socks, soda bottles or tennis rackets and place them into bags for pickup by the shopper.
The arrangement would allow shoppers to buy staple goods from brands that aren’t carried at Whole Foods markets like Pepsi soda and Kellogg’s cereal, and tap into Amazon’s vast online catalog of items.
Amazon said it’s looking to “eliminate those extra trips” made by shoppers to other grocery stores. The average American shops at two different grocery stores per week, whether to maximize their cost savings, shop from a broader range of products, or take advantage of different promotions at each store, according to an April study from market research firm Drive Research.
“Customers shopping at Whole Foods Market today are looking for natural and organic products,” Varadarajan said during a presentation on Wednesday. “However, our data shows that many of them also visit additional stores to complete their regular grocery shopping needs. With our micro fulfillment center, we can reduce the need for our customers to visit different stores or make multiple online orders.”
Amazon has for years angled to gobble up a bigger share of the grocery market. It’s a category where Americans frequently spend money, more than other verticals like clothes or electronics. But Amazon also faces stiff competition from entrenched players like Walmart, Kroger and Albertsons, along with regional grocers.
In 2017, it spent $13.7 billion to acquire Whole Foods, a price tag more than 10 times higher than Amazon had paid in any prior deal. It’s also launched a growing stable of grocery offerings, including a grocery delivery service and its own supermarket chain, Amazon Fresh, aimed at the mass market.
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy has also said the company has a growing business selling “everyday essentials” like paper towels, dish soap and other items.
OpenAI is increasingly becoming a platform of choice for cyber actors looking to influence democratic elections across the globe.
In a 54-page report published Wednesday, the ChatGPT creator said that it’s disrupted “more than 20 operations and deceptive networks from around the world that attempted to use our models.” The threats ranged from AI-generated website articles to social media posts by fake accounts.
The company said its update on “influence and cyber operations” was intended to provide a “snapshot” of what it’s seeing and to identify “an initial set of trends that we believe can inform debate on how AI fits into the broader threat landscape.”
OpenAI’s report lands less than a month before the U.S. presidential election. Beyond the U.S., it’s a significant year for elections worldwide, with contests taking place that affect upward of 4 billion people in more than 40 countries. The rise of AI-generated content has led to serious election-related misinformation concerns, with the number of deepfakes that have been created increasing 900% year over year, according to data from Clarity, a machine learning firm.
Misinformation in elections is not a new phenomenon. It’s been a major problem dating back to the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when Russian actors found cheap and easy ways to spread false content across social platforms. In 2020, social networks were inundated with misinformation on Covid vaccines and election fraud.
Lawmakers’ concerns today are more focused on the rise in generative AI, which took off in late 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT and is now being adopted by companies of all sizes.
OpenAI wrote in its report that election-related uses of AI “ranged in complexity from simple requests for content generation, to complex, multi-stage efforts to analyze and reply to social media posts.” The social media content related mostly to elections in the U.S. and Rwanda, and to a lesser extent, elections in India and the EU, OpenAI said.
In late August, an Iranian operation used OpenAI’s products to generate “long-form articles” and social media comments about the U.S. election, as well as other topics, but the company said the majority of identified posts received few or no likes, shares and comments. In July, the company banned ChatGPT accounts in Rwanda that were posting election-related comments on X. And in May, an Israeli company used ChatGPT to generate social media comments about elections in India. OpenAI wrote that it was able to address the case within less than 24 hours.
In June, OpenAI addressed a covert operation that used its products to generate comments about the European Parliament elections in France, and politics in the U.S., Germany, Italy and Poland. The company said that while most social media posts it identified received few likes or shares, some real people did reply to the AI-generated posts.
None of the election-related operations were able to attract “viral engagement” or build “sustained audiences” via the use of ChatGPT and OpenAI’s other tools, the company wrote.