Tag Archives: Digital Marketing

DOJ Sues Google, Seeking to Break Up Online Advertising Business

The Justice Department is seeking the breakup of Google’s business brokering digital advertising across much of the internet, a major expansion of the legal challenges the company faces to its business in the U.S. and abroad.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday, the Justice Department’s second against the

Alphabet Inc.

GOOG -1.98%

unit following one filed in 2020, alleges that Google abuses its role as one of the largest brokers, suppliers and online auctioneers of ads placed on websites and mobile applications. The filing promises a protracted court battle with wide-ranging implications for the digital-advertising industry.

Filed in federal court in Virginia, the case alleges that Google abuses monopoly power in the ad-tech industry, hurting web publishers and advertisers that try to use competing products. Eight states, including California and New York, joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks the court to unwind Google’s “anticompetitive acquisitions,” such as its 2008 purchase of ad-serving company DoubleClick, and calls for the divestiture of its ad exchange.

“For 15 years Google has pursued a course of anticompetitive conduct that has allowed it to halt the rise of rival technologies, manipulate auction mechanics, insulate itself from competition, and forced advertisers and publishers to use its tools,” Attorney General

Merrick Garland

said at a press conference Tuesday. “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct that has severely weakened if not destroyed competition in the ad-tech industry.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Tuesday that the digital-advertising industry was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct.



Photo:

Al Drago/Bloomberg News

A Google spokesman said the lawsuit “attempts to pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.”

“DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” the spokesman said.

By calling for specific divestitures from Google’s ad-tech business, the Justice Department lawsuit went further in seeking a breakup than some antitrust experts had expected. Shares of Alphabet fell by about 2% in trading on Tuesday.

Though largely invisible to internet users, the ad-tech tools controlled by Google facilitate much of the buying and selling of digital ads that helps fund online publishers. Google’s business includes a tool publishers can use to offer ad space, a product for advertisers to buy those slots and an exchange that automatically links bidders with webpages as they are being loaded for individual users.

Big tech companies such as Google are under a barrage from lawmakers and regulators across multiple continents who have targeted the companies’ dominance in online markets. Justice Department officials also are investigating

Apple Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission has sued

Meta Platforms Inc.’s

Facebook unit over antitrust allegations and

Microsoft Corp.

to block its planned $75 billion acquisition of

Activision Blizzard Inc.

President Biden recently urged lawmakers from both parties to unite behind legislation seeking to rein in tech giants. The European Union also has opened cases looking at alleged anticompetitive conduct by Google, Meta and other companies.

The Justice Department’s 2020 lawsuit against Google targeted its position in online search markets, including an agreement to make Google search the default in Apple’s Safari web browser. Google is fighting the case, which is expected to go to trial this year.

Alphabet gets about 80% of its business from advertising. The Justice Department’s new suit targets the subset of that ad business that brokers the buying and selling of ads on other websites and apps. Google reported $31.7 billion in revenue in 2021 from that ad-brokering activity, or about 12% of Alphabet’s total revenue. Google distributes about 70% of that revenue to web publishers and developers.

Last year, Google offered to split off parts of its ad-tech business into a separate company under the Alphabet umbrella to fend off the most recent Justice Department investigation. DOJ officials rejected the offer and decided to pursue the lawsuit instead.

For years, Google has faced allegations from advertising- and media-industry executives, lawmakers and regulators that its presence at multiple points of the online ad-buying process harms publishers and gives it an unfair advantage over rivals. Google also operates the most popular search engine and the largest online video-streaming site, YouTube, giving rise to allegations it has tilted the market in its own favor.

Rivals say that Google’s power in digital advertising stems from a series of acquisitions Google used to build its ad-tech business, beginning with the company’s $3.1 billion purchase of DoubleClick. The FTC approved the merger in a controversial decision. Google went on to purchase a host of other startups including the mobile-advertising company AdMob.

“Having inserted itself into all aspects of the digital advertising marketplace, Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful means to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” the complaint read.

Google has said it has no plans to sell or exit the ad-tech business. It has also strongly contested claims in a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general, led by Texas, containing allegations similar to the Justice Department complaint. A federal judge denied the bulk of Google’s motion to dismiss the case last year, allowing it to proceed to the discovery stage and ultimately toward trial.

Google’s Android operating system is the most popular in the world—you can find Android code on everything from Peloton bikes to kitchen appliances and even NASA satellites. WSJ’s Dalvin Brown explains why it is the world’s most-used OS. Illustration: Rami Abukalam

Any divestiture of parts of Google’s ad-tech business would cause big ripple effects across the online advertising industry, which has recently shown signs of weakness as consumers dial back purchases in response to worsening economic conditions.

Breaking off parts of Google’s ad-tech business from the rest of the company could take years of litigation to resolve. Depending on the outcome of the case, ad-tech executives have said the results could range from a higher share of ad dollars flowing to publishers to lower overall spending because digital ads would be less efficient without Google brokering them.

The 149-page complaint makes detailed allegations about the internal workings of Google’s ad-tech operations. The suit alleges, for instance, that Google used anticompetitive tactics to build up the market share of its own ad server, which issues requests for advertisements on behalf of websites, and then used that market power to effectively push publishers into sending their ad inventory only to Google’s in-house ad exchange, AdX.

The Justice Department argues, in part, that this conduct locked out rival ad-tech providers, increasing prices for advertisers and costs of publishers.

“Google keeps at least thirty cents—and sometimes far more—of each advertising dollar flowing from advertisers to website publishers through Google’s ad tech tools,” the lawsuit alleges. “Google’s own internal documents concede that Google would earn far less in a competitive market.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Google executives worked to kill a rival online-bidding technology called “header bidding,” which the lawsuit says the company referred to internally as an “existential threat.” As part of a plan dubbed Project Poirot, the company allegedly changed its own ad-buying tools to underbid on behalf of advertisers when they turned to outside ad exchanges that used header bidding, so those rivals would lose more auctions and “dry out,” the complaint says.

At one point, Google also approached

Amazon.com Inc.,

to ask “what it would take for Amazon to stop investing in its header bidding product,” the complaint alleges, adding that Amazon rebuffed those requests.

“Google uses its dominion over digital advertising technology to funnel more transactions to its own ad tech products where it extracts inflated fees to line its own pockets at the expense of the advertisers and publishers it purportedly serves,” the complaint read.

The Justice Department case overlaps in some ways with the late 2020 lawsuit from the group of U.S. states led by Texas.

In Tuesday’s complaint, the Justice Department quotes some of the same internal communications as the Texas-led lawsuit, including how one Google executive compared the company’s control over ad-tech to the financial sector: “The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” referring to the New York Stock Exchange.

The case also shares similarities with an investigation that the EU’s top antitrust enforcer, the European Commission, opened in 2021, as well as one by the U.K.’s Competition and Markets Authority. Those probes are exploring allegations that Google favors its own ad-buying tools in the advertising auctions it runs, but also look at other elements of Google’s ad-tech business. The EU, for instance, is also looking at Google’s alleged exclusion of competitors from brokering ad-buys on its video site YouTube.

Mr. Garland said Tuesday that the Justice Department filed its own lawsuit because the federal government was harmed by Google’s allegedly monopolistic conduct. Federal agencies have since 2019 spent over $100 million on display ads, the complaint says. The government paid inflated fees and was harmed by manipulated advertising prices because of Google’s anticompetitive conduct, the lawsuit alleges.

Microsoft is deepening its partnership with OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and Dall-E. That has investors and analysts speculating whether Microsoft could challenge Google’s dominance in search. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist Dan Gallagher joins host Zoe Thomas to discuss how AI could affect search and at what cost.

Jonathan Kanter,

the assistant attorney general for antitrust, said while there are similarities with other lawsuits against Google, the Justice Department’s complaint is based on its own investigation that yielded “meticulous detail” about Google’s ad-tech business.

“We detail many facts, many episodes that in the individual and in the aggregate have maintained numerous monopolies,” Mr. Kanter said.

Google has attempted to settle the claims against its ad-tech business. In addition to offering to split off parts of its ad-tech business to avoid the Justice Department suit, the company last year discussed with the EU an offer to allow competitors to broker the sale of ads directly on the video service.

In 2021, the company agreed to give U.K. antitrust regulators effective veto power over elements of its plans to remove a technology called third-party cookies from its Chrome browser to settle an investigation there into the plan.

In France, Google agreed to pay a fine of 220 million euros, equivalent to about $239 million, and to improve data access to competing ad-tech companies, to not use its data in ways rivals couldn’t reproduce to settle a similar antitrust investigation in the country.

Write to Miles Kruppa at miles.kruppa@wsj.com and Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

These 11 stocks can lead your portfolio’s rebound after the S&P 500 ‘earnings recession’ and a market bottom next year

This may surprise you: Wall Street analysts expect earnings for the S&P 500 to increase 8% during 2023, despite all the buzz about a possible recession as the Federal Reserve tightens monetary policy to quell inflation.

Ken Laudan, a portfolio manager at Kornitzer Capital Management in Mission, Kan., isn’t buying it. He expects an “earnings recession” for the S&P 500
SPX,
+2.69%
— that is, a decline in profits of around 10%. But he also expects that decline to set up a bottom for the stock market.

Laudan’s predictions for the S&P 500 ‘earnings recession’ and bottom

Laudan, who manages the $83 million Buffalo Large Cap Fund
BUFEX,
-2.86%
and co-manages the $905 million Buffalo Discovery Fund
BUFTX,
-2.82%,
said during an interview: “It is not unusual to see a 20% hit [to earnings] in a modest recession. Margins have peaked.”

The consensus among analysts polled by FactSet is for weighted aggregate earnings for the S&P 500 to total $238.23 a share in 2023, which would be an 8% increase from the current 2022 EPS estimate of $220.63.

Laudan said his base case for 2023 is for earnings of about $195 to $200 a share and for that decline in earnings (about 9% to 12% from the current consensus estimate for 2022) to be “coupled with an economic recession of some sort.”

He expects the Wall Street estimates to come down, and said that “once Street estimates get to $205 or $210, I think stocks will take off.”

He went further, saying “things get really interesting at 3200 or 3300 on the S&P.” The S&P 500 closed at 3583.07 on Oct. 14, a decline of 24.8% for 2022, excluding dividends.

Laudan said the Buffalo Large Cap Fund was about 7% in cash, as he was keeping some powder dry for stock purchases at lower prices, adding that he has been “fairly defensive” since October 2021 and was continuing to focus on “steady dividend-paying companies with strong balance sheets.”

Leaders for the stock market’s recovery

After the market hits bottom, Laudan expects a recovery for stocks to begin next year, as “valuations will discount and respond more quickly than the earnings will.”

He expects “long-duration technology growth stocks” to lead the rally, because “they got hit first.” When asked if Nvidia Corp.
NVDA,
+5.93%
and Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
AMD,
+3.77%
were good examples, in light of the broad decline for semiconductor stocks and because both are held by the Buffalo Large Cap Fund, Laudan said: “They led us down and they will bounce first.”

Laudan said his “largest tech holding” is ASML Holding N.V.
ASML,
+3.60%,
which provides equipment and systems used to fabricate computer chips.

Among the largest tech-oriented companies, the Buffalo Large Cap fund also holds shares of Apple Inc.
AAPL,
+3.13%,
Microsoft Corp.
MSFT,
+3.85%,
Amazon.com Inc.
AMZN,
+6.28%
and Alphabet Inc.
GOOG,
+4.05%

GOOGL,
+3.86%.

Laudan also said he had been “overweight’ in UnitedHealth Group Inc.
UNH,
+1.31%,
Danaher Corp.
DHR,
+2.60%
and Linde PLC
LIN,
+2.30%
recently and had taken advantage of the decline in Adobe Inc.’s
ADBE,
+1.97%
price following the announcement of its $20 billion acquisition of Figma, by scooping up more shares.

Summarizing the declines

To illustrate what a brutal year it has been for semiconductor stocks, the iShares Semiconductor ETF
SOXX,
+2.02%,
which tracks the PHLX Semiconductor Index
SOX,
+2.22%
of 30 U.S.-listed chip makers and related equipment manufacturers, has dropped 44% this year. Then again, SOXX had risen 38% over the past three years and 81% for five years, underlining the importance of long-term thinking for stock investors, even during this terrible bear market for this particular tech space.

Here’s a summary of changes in stock prices (again, excluding dividends) and forward price-to-forward-earnings valuations during 2022 through Oct. 14 for every stock mentioned in this article. The stocks are sorted alphabetically:

Company Ticker 2022 price change Forward P/E Forward P/E as of Dec. 31, 2021
Apple Inc. AAPL,
+3.13%
-22% 22.2 30.2
Adobe Inc. ADBE,
+1.97%
-49% 19.4 40.5
Amazon.com Inc. AMZN,
+6.28%
-36% 62.1 64.9
Advanced Micro Devices Inc. AMD,
+3.77%
-61% 14.7 43.1
ASML Holding N.V. ADR ASML,
+3.60%
-52% 22.7 41.2
Danaher Corp. DHR,
+2.60%
-23% 24.3 32.1
Alphabet Inc. Class C GOOG,
+4.05%
-33% 17.5 25.3
Linde PLC LIN,
+2.30%
-21% 22.2 29.6
Microsoft Corp. MSFT,
+3.85%
-32% 22.5 34.0
Nvidia Corp. NVDA,
+5.93%
-62% 28.9 58.0
UnitedHealth Group Inc. UNH,
+1.31%
2% 21.5 23.2
Source: FactSet

You can click on the tickers for more about each company. Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available free on the MarketWatch quote page.

The forward P/E ratio for the S&P 500 declined to 16.9 as of the close on Oct. 14 from 24.5 at the end of 2021, while the forward P/E for SOXX declined to 13.2 from 27.1.

Don’t miss: This is how high interest rates might rise, and what could scare the Federal Reserve into a policy pivot

Read original article here

Google Loses Most of Appeal of EU Android Decision

BRUSSELS—

Alphabet Inc.’s

GOOG 0.57%

Google suffered legal blows on two continents this week, a significant setback in the company’s efforts to fight allegations that it is abusing its dominance in digital advertising and on mobile phones.

The EU’s General Court in Luxembourg on Wednesday largely upheld a 2018 decision by the EU competition regulator that fined Google $4.33 billion for allegedly abusing the market dominance of its Android operating system for mobile phones to promote and entrench its Google search engine and Chrome browser on mobile devices.

The decision came shortly after a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday denied the bulk of Google’s motion to dismiss the claims brought by a coalition of states led by Texas alleging Google abused its dominance in digital advertising tools, allowing the case to proceed to the discovery stage and ultimately toward trial.

The EU ruling means Google will very likely continue applying some of the changes it has made since to comply with the 2018 decision, including offering users in the EU a choice screen of different search engines. The Android case was the biggest of three antitrust fines totaling more than $8 billion that the EU has levied against Google since 2017—and it focused on mobile phones, one of the company’s fastest growth areas.

The ruling is also a vote of confidence for the European Commission, the bloc’s antitrust enforcer, which has been aggressive in targeting big U.S. tech companies and other firms over concerns about anticompetitive behavior. Last week, the Commission blocked

Illumina Inc.’s

$7.1 billion merger with cancer-test developer Grail Inc., two U.S. companies.

In the U.S., Judge P. Kevin Castel’s decision was closely watched because the Justice Department has been preparing a similar antitrust case against Google over its position in the advertising technology industry.

In both cases, Google did score some partial victories.

In the EU, the court annulled one element of the decision that alleged Google had broken competition laws by making revenue-sharing payments to manufacturers to exclusively pre-install only Google Search, not competing search engines. As a result, the court reduced the overall fine by about 5% to €4.13 billion, about the same in dollars.

“We are disappointed that the court did not annul the decision in full,” a Google spokesman said, adding that Android has created more competition in the mobile phone industry. The company has previously said it should be able to recoup the money it spends developing Android by encouraging manufacturers to install Google Search.

The court’s decision can still be appealed to the EU’s top court, the Court of Justice. Google said it would review the decision before deciding whether to appeal.

In the U.S., the judge tossed out claims pertaining to Google’s “Jedi Blue” ad agreement with rival Facebook—now known as Meta Platforms Inc. The plaintiffs alleged the deal was part of a plan to “kill” an alternative ad technology called header bidding that Google executives feared would harm its business. He also knocked down the plaintiffs’ claim that Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages, or AMP, technology was part of an anticompetitive plot to curtail header bidding, among several other claims from the plaintiffs.

In a blog post Tuesday in response to the U.S. decision, Google called the Jedi Blue allegations the “centerpiece” of Texas’s case, and cited the various allegations that were tossed out as evidence that the case was “deeply flawed.”

In a statement on Wednesday, Texas Attorney General

Ken Paxton

applauded the judge’s decision, calling it “a major step in the right direction to make our free market truly free.”

The 2018 EU Android case has been significant because it focused on Google’s efforts to increase its mobile business, but also because it underscored Google detractors’ arguments that antitrust enforcement takes too long. By the time the commission had issued its decision, those detractors said Android had already helped make Google Search as dominant on mobile devices as it had been on desktops.

Shortening the time it takes to force companies to make changes in the market was a major reason that the EU pursued new digital-competition legislation called the Digital Markets Act, passed earlier this year. The new law will eventually make it illegal for Google and other very large tech companies to engage in a range of practices that the bloc considers to be anticompetitive, including some of the practices the commission has previously issued fines for.

The 2018 decision focused in large part on how Google bundled together the licensing of its apps for Android devices. In that decision, the EU ordered Google to stop requiring smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the company’s search app and Chrome web browser as a condition for licensing Google’s popular Play app store. It also said the company would have to allow manufacturers to install Google apps on systems that run alternative versions of the Android operating system.

The EU argued Google’s practices had made it harder for potential competitors to emerge and were part of a strategy that was meant to ensure that Google’s search engine would remain dominant as consumers began using search engines on their smartphones.

Google quickly appealed the 2018 decision but also had to comply with it while its appeal was under way. Google changed its licensing deals for manufacturers and implemented what it called a Choice Screen on Android devices, allowing users of new phones in the EU to select alternate default search engines. So far that choice screen doesn’t appear to have had an appreciable impact on the market share for Google Search in Europe.

Google’s appeal of the case centered in part on whether its Android operating system is dominant, arguing that the Commission was wrong to consider Android devices as their own market without seeing them as competitors to

Apple’s

iPhone and iPad devices. The company also argued that requirements to bundle Google Search with its app store weren’t anticompetitive, and that restrictions on use of other versions of Android were needed to ensure Android phones would be compatible with the company’s apps. The court dismissed Google’s arguments on all those points on Wednesday.

Google also argued that the revenue-sharing agreements that required phone makers not to pre-install other search engines covered less than 5% of the market and didn’t have an impact on competitors. The court on Wednesday sided with Google, ruling that the Commission didn’t prove its case on that point.

It is the European Commission’s second court victory against Google in as many years. Last year, Google lost its appeal of a separate, $2.42 billion antitrust fine over allegedly directing users of its search engine to Google’s own comparison-shopping ads at the expense of other services. A second appeal to the EU’s top court is pending.

Google was also fined $1.49 billion in 2019 for limiting how some websites could show ads that were sold by the company’s rivals. Its appeal of that case is still under way.

Google continues to attract scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the EU. Last year, the commission opened a formal antitrust investigation into allegations that Google abuses its dominant position in advertising technology. Google said its ad-tech tools are competitive and that it would work with the commission to resolve its questions.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that Google had offered concessions to try to ward off a potential antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. targeting the company’s ad-tech business.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that Google had offered concessions to try to ward off the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit targeting the company’s ad-tech business, but people familiar with the matter say the offer wasn’t likely to satisfy regulators.

Write to Sam Schechner at sam.schechner@wsj.com and Kim Mackrael at kim.mackrael@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Google Charges More Than Twice Its Rivals in Ad Deals, Unredacted Suit Says

Google takes a cut of 22% to 42% of U.S. ad spending that goes through its systems, according to a newly unredacted lawsuit by state attorneys general, shedding new light on how the search giant profits from its commanding position in the internet economy.

The share the

Alphabet Inc.

GOOG -3.43%

subsidiary takes of each advertising transaction on its exchange—a marketplace for ad buyers and sellers—is typically two- to four-times as much as the fees charged by rival digital advertising exchanges, according to the suit, which is being led by Texas.

The unredacted filing on Friday in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York came after a federal judge ruled last week that much of the antitrust suit could be unsealed.

“[T]he analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]” one senior Google employee said, according to the suit.

Google has called the lawsuit flawed. “This lawsuit is riddled with inaccuracies and our ad tech fees are actually lower than reported industry averages,” said Peter Schottenfels, a Google spokesman.

The suit alleges the company has deployed strategies to “lock in” publishers and advertisers and help the company’s ad buying tools win more than 80% of auctions on its exchange, a newly revealed figure. It gives a window into Google’s overwhelming dominance of advertising, citing Google documents that say the company served 75% of all online ad impressions in the U.S. during the third quarter of 2018.

The suit cites programs, with code names such as Bell, Elmo and Poirot, that helped Google generate more than $1 billion in sales.

The Department of Justice is investigating the U.S.’s largest tech firms for allegedly monopolistic behavior. Roughly 20 years ago, a similar case threatened to destabilize Microsoft. WSJ explains.

The case argues that Google’s business practices inflate advertising costs, which brands pass on to consumers in higher priced products. It also alleges that Google suppresses competition from rival exchanges and limits websites’ options for ad delivery.

Led by Texas Attorney General

Ken Paxton

and joined by 15 states, the suit complements a separate antitrust case by the U.S. Justice Department and 38 state attorneys general focused on Google’s search services, as well as a Utah-led lawsuit targeting Google’s Play app store. Those cases are set for trial in 2023 or later. The Justice Department is exploring a separate suit against Google’s advertising business.

Lawyers for the group of states in the Texas-led suit put a focus on the role of Google’s advertising exchange, called AdX, which they say charges a fee of between 19% and 22% of the prices advertisers are paying on the exchange to reach publishers. That is double to quadruple what AdX’s nearest competitors charge, according to the suit.

The company’s commanding market share in advertising helped it secure those larger fees, according to the suit.

Smaller advertisers pay even larger fees. Transacting on a separate system called Google Display Network, they pay fees ranging from 32% to 40% to Google. The rates are in line with Google’s public statements that publishers receive 68% of revenue from AdSense, a tool to serve ads to smaller websites.

In internal discussions about Google Display Network, executives said the company’s ad networks make “A LOT of money” in commissions because “we can,” according to the suit. “Smaller pubs don’t have alternative revenue sources,” a Google employee said.

When a system called header bidding opened Google’s ad auctions to rival exchanges about five years ago, a change that followed accusations that the tech giant’s systems were anticompetitive, a Google executive wrote in an email that the system posed “an obvious dilemma” that could reduce Google’s profit margins to “around 5 percent,” according to the unredacted suit.

The company deemed the threat of header bidding existential because the system would circumvent Google’s tools. In 2016, one employee worried that competition from rival exchanges would show that the 20% fee Google charged for its exchange “likely wasn’t justified,” according to the suit. Others strategized to “kill” it.

“AdX is the lifeblood of our programmatic business,” a company executive wrote in an email in 2017. “What do we do?”

The search giant sought to undermine header bidding through partnerships and software that protected its position, the suit says. Google offered an alternative to header bidding that appeared to be a concession to the competitive pressure, but the suit says it secretly developed a program called “Jedi” to ensure that Google’s exchange won auctions.

Google employees anticipated that the Jedi program could create blowback from clients and the public, saying it “generates suboptimal yields for publishers and serious risks of negative media coverage if exposed externally,” according to newly unredacted material.

The company’s staff also discussed playing a “jedi mind trick” on the industry by “getting publishers to come up with” the idea of removing rival exchanges “on their own”—primarily by fostering concern that header bidding would strain a publisher’s servers, the suit says.

In 2018, Google struck a previously-reported deal with Facebook that it code-named “Jedi Blue.” The complaint alleges that

Facebook

engaged in an “18-month header bidding strategy” to increase its leverage in such a deal.

The complaint alleges Google also developed Accelerated Mobile Pages, or AMP, a version of a website hosted on Google’s servers designed to load quickly on mobile phones, in part as a way to combat header bidding. Google explicitly designed AMP pages not to work well with header bidding, the suit alleges, and deliberately made ads that didn’t use AMP load with a one-second delay to give AMP what Google called “a nice comparative boost.”

Publicly, Google claimed the AMP sites loaded four times faster than non-AMP pages. But internally Google employees said they grappled with being asked to “justify” a system that actually made websites “slower,” according to the complaint.

Google internal documents show that AMP pages brought 40% less revenue to publishers, according to unredacted sections of the suit.

Texas Attorney General Paxton said that Google’s internal communications show it can’t justify its ad fees. “Only a monopolist can charge rates that are double the rates of its competitors and yet still increase their market share,” Mr. Paxton said.

Google’s Reach in Internet Economy

Write to Keach Hagey at keach.hagey@wsj.com and Tripp Mickle at Tripp.Mickle@wsj.com

Copyright ©2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here