Who’s going to be the system that will fill the vacuum when the judge tells them to do it anyway and it breaks along the way?
todd-davies 1 days ago [-]
The argument of technical impossibility seems implausible, although it would no-doubt be difficult. Whether there can be enough engineering will mustered within the company to separate out the AdTech stack from the rest of Google's services is another question.
In terms of how the AdTech stack could look afterwards, here is a paper (I authored) advocating for the introduction of an interop layer such that users could choose which advertising network to use with Google's products and services: https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.1113
rolph 2 days ago [-]
mafiapoly: the result of breaking the law for long enough, that you are too large, too integrated into the economy to be subject to law.
kylehotchkiss 2 days ago [-]
Word of the Year 2026
thfuran 2 days ago [-]
Not a problem. Sell everything else.
warbaker 2 days ago [-]
Is anyone willing to explain to me how Google is a monopolist in advertising? There are other online advertising platforms, and publishers can and do sell adds directly to advertisers.
estimator7292 2 days ago [-]
"Monopoly" does not mean "one and only vendor of XYZ good/service that exsits ever"
Monopolies can exist when there is technically still competition. Being a monopoly does *NOT* mean you've destroyed all other competitors or that you are literally the only entity in the entire universe offering a good or service.
Whether an entity represents a monopoly is a subjective measure. It is *NOT* a binary true/false based on trivially observable data. It mostly comes down to how the entity behaves with regard to competitors. Principally, using unfair and uncompetitive pricing and sales strategies, egregious lock-ins, and using your market-dominant position to force competitors and consumers to operate in certain ways.
The fact that other ad markets exist at all does not disqualify google from being a monopoly.
ThatPlayer 2 days ago [-]
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
In terms of how the AdTech stack could look afterwards, here is a paper (I authored) advocating for the introduction of an interop layer such that users could choose which advertising network to use with Google's products and services: https://doi.org/10.36633/ulr.1113
Monopolies can exist when there is technically still competition. Being a monopoly does *NOT* mean you've destroyed all other competitors or that you are literally the only entity in the entire universe offering a good or service.
Whether an entity represents a monopoly is a subjective measure. It is *NOT* a binary true/false based on trivially observable data. It mostly comes down to how the entity behaves with regard to competitors. Principally, using unfair and uncompetitive pricing and sales strategies, egregious lock-ins, and using your market-dominant position to force competitors and consumers to operate in certain ways.
The fact that other ad markets exist at all does not disqualify google from being a monopoly.
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
Even a company the size of Google can be divided up