The complainants of an antitrust complaint against Google filed a proposed final judgment revised to the judge in the case. The proposal comes after a previous decision where the court determined that Google had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly.
The legal deposit of the complainants, the American Ministry of Justice and the prosecutors General, argue that Google has maintained monopolies in research and text advertising through anti -competitive practices.
The deposit offers four ways to loosen Google’s monopolistic socket on research and advertising.
- Require from Google to separate Chrome from its activities – this could mean selling it or transforming it into an independent company.
- Limit Google payments to companies like Apple to make Google the default search engine, reducing its ability to secure exclusive offers.
- Prevent Google from promoting its own products compared to competitors in research and other services, guaranteeing more level playing field.
- Increased transparency in Google advertising and data practices so that competitors have more equitable access to key information.
The proposal requests that Google be subject to continuous monitoring thanks to compulsory reports to ensure the transparency of Google advertising and data practices:
“Google must provide the technical committee and the complainants with a monthly report describing any modification of its research text auctions and its public disclosure of these modifications.”
He also suggests the current application to ensure that Google does not impose new restrictions that undermine transparency requirements:
“Google should not limit the ability of advertisers to export in real time (by downloading via an interface or access to the API) or information relating to the entire advertising or advertising campaigns bid, placed or purchased via Google.”
The objective of the above section is to increase the transparency of the Google advertising system and allow advertisers to analyze their advertising performance more easily, greater transparency.
Access in real time guarantees that advertisers can make immediate adjustments to their campaigns instead of waiting for delayed reports and this guarantees that advertisers are not locked in the Google advertising system by holding them hostage to their historical data.
Legal deposit requires restrictions imposed by the government and changes to Google commercial advertising practices. It offers remedies on how Google must be regulated or restructured following the previous decision of the Court according to which Google has engaged in monopolistic practices. However, it is not the final judgment and the court must always decide to adopt, modify or reject these proposed appeals.
Star image by Shutterstock / Shutterstock ai generator
The complainants of an antitrust complaint against Google filed a proposed final judgment revised to the judge in the case. The proposal comes after a previous decision where the court determined that Google had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly.
The legal deposit of the complainants, the American Ministry of Justice and the prosecutors General, argue that Google has maintained monopolies in research and text advertising through anti -competitive practices.
The deposit offers four ways to loosen Google’s monopolistic socket on research and advertising.
- Require from Google to separate Chrome from its activities – this could mean selling it or transforming it into an independent company.
- Limit Google payments to companies like Apple to make Google the default search engine, reducing its ability to secure exclusive offers.
- Prevent Google from promoting its own products compared to competitors in research and other services, guaranteeing more level playing field.
- Increased transparency in Google advertising and data practices so that competitors have more equitable access to key information.
The proposal requests that Google be subject to continuous monitoring thanks to compulsory reports to ensure the transparency of Google advertising and data practices:
“Google must provide the technical committee and the complainants with a monthly report describing any modification of its research text auctions and its public disclosure of these modifications.”
He also suggests the current application to ensure that Google does not impose new restrictions that undermine transparency requirements:
“Google should not limit the ability of advertisers to export in real time (by downloading via an interface or access to the API) or information relating to the entire advertising or advertising campaigns bid, placed or purchased via Google.”
The objective of the above section is to increase the transparency of the Google advertising system and allow advertisers to analyze their advertising performance more easily, greater transparency.
Access in real time guarantees that advertisers can make immediate adjustments to their campaigns instead of waiting for delayed reports and this guarantees that advertisers are not locked in the Google advertising system by holding them hostage to their historical data.
Legal deposit requires restrictions imposed by the government and changes to Google commercial advertising practices. It offers remedies on how Google must be regulated or restructured following the previous decision of the Court according to which Google has engaged in monopolistic practices. However, it is not the final judgment and the court must always decide to adopt, modify or reject these proposed appeals.
Star image by Shutterstock / Shutterstock ai generator
The complainants of an antitrust complaint against Google filed a proposed final judgment revised to the judge in the case. The proposal comes after a previous decision where the court determined that Google had violated antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly.
The legal deposit of the complainants, the American Ministry of Justice and the prosecutors General, argue that Google has maintained monopolies in research and text advertising through anti -competitive practices.
The deposit offers four ways to loosen Google’s monopolistic socket on research and advertising.
- Require from Google to separate Chrome from its activities – this could mean selling it or transforming it into an independent company.
- Limit Google payments to companies like Apple to make Google the default search engine, reducing its ability to secure exclusive offers.
- Prevent Google from promoting its own products compared to competitors in research and other services, guaranteeing more level playing field.
- Increased transparency in Google advertising and data practices so that competitors have more equitable access to key information.
The proposal requests that Google be subject to continuous monitoring thanks to compulsory reports to ensure the transparency of Google advertising and data practices:
“Google must provide the technical committee and the complainants with a monthly report describing any modification of its research text auctions and its public disclosure of these modifications.”
He also suggests the current application to ensure that Google does not impose new restrictions that undermine transparency requirements:
“Google should not limit the ability of advertisers to export in real time (by downloading via an interface or access to the API) or information relating to the entire advertising or advertising campaigns bid, placed or purchased via Google.”
The objective of the above section is to increase the transparency of the Google advertising system and allow advertisers to analyze their advertising performance more easily, greater transparency.
Access in real time guarantees that advertisers can make immediate adjustments to their campaigns instead of waiting for delayed reports and this guarantees that advertisers are not locked in the Google advertising system by holding them hostage to their historical data.
Legal deposit requires restrictions imposed by the government and changes to Google commercial advertising practices. It offers remedies on how Google must be regulated or restructured following the previous decision of the Court according to which Google has engaged in monopolistic practices. However, it is not the final judgment and the court must always decide to adopt, modify or reject these proposed appeals.
Star image by Shutterstock / Shutterstock ai generator
