Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us

Business

As unemployment benefits and savings dwindle, having an artistic side helps.

Published

on

For three years, Lea Polizzi worked more than 50 hours a week as a nanny and a freelance photographer in New York City. But in March, when the pandemic hit, the family she worked for on the Upper East Side left the city, and all of her photography gigs dried up.

Ms. Polizzi, 24, filed for unemployment benefits and started receiving about $200 a week from the state, as well as a $600 federal supplement. Those payments enabled her to meet expenses — including the $1,100 rent for her apartment in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn — while she looked for a job.

But the $600 payments expired at the end of July. Since then, Ms. Polizzi has used about 75 percent of her savings — roughly $4,000 — to pay bills.

“That was the money I had saved to use for vacations or emergency funds,” Ms. Polizzi said. “I was going to buy a new camera. And then as soon as everything started going down, I had to put everything on hold, because I knew that I was going to end up having to pay rent with it eventually.”

Ms. Polizzi recently received $900 from Lost Wages Assistance, a short-term supplement from the federal government, and she expects one more payment from the program in the next few weeks.

In the meantime, she has taken matters into her own hands. She is making masks, lingerie, hats and jewelry and selling the items online at $25 to $200 apiece.

She has made about 60 sales. “Hopefully, I’ll be able to make it work and just pay all my bills through my art ventures,” she said.

Source

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Here Are The 7 States Considering Antitrust Lawsuits Against Google

Published

on

The Justice Department accused Google of building an illegal monopoly over central parts of the internet.
Credit…John Taggart for The New York Times

The Justice Department accused Google of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising, in the government’s most significant legal challenge to a tech company’s market power in a generation.

In a lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, the agency accused Google, a unit of Alphabet, of using several exclusive business contracts and agreements to lock out competition.

Such contracts include Google’s payment of billions of dollars to Apple to place the Google search engine as the default for iPhones. By using contracts to maintain its monopoly, the suit says, competition and innovation has suffered.

Google responded by describing the lawsuit as “deeply flawed.”

“This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers,” the company said in a statement on its website. “To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use.”

Attorney General William P. Barr, who was appointed by President Trump, has played an unusually active role in the investigation. He pushed career Justice Department attorneys to bring the case by the end of September, prompting pushback from lawyers who wanted more time and complained of political influence. Mr. Barr has spoken publicly about the inquiry for months and set tight deadlines for the prosecutors leading the effort.

The lawsuit may stretch on for years and could set off a cascade of other antitrust lawsuits from state attorneys general. About four dozen states and jurisdictions have conducted parallel investigations and are expected to bring separate complaints against the company’s grip on technology for online advertising.

A victory for the government could remake one of America’s most recognizable companies and the internet economy that it has helped define since it was founded by two Stanford University graduate students in 1998.

But Google has long denied accusations of antitrust violations and is expected to fight the government’s efforts by using a global network of lawyers, economists and lobbyists. Alphabet, valued at $1.04 trillion and with cash reserves of $120 billion, has fought similar antitrust lawsuits in Europe.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen said that Google “has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”
Credit…Pool photo by Olivier Douliery

The United States on Tuesday accused Google, a unit of Alphabet, of illegally maintaining a monopoly over search through several exclusive business contracts and agreements that lock out competition.

At a press briefing Tuesday morning, Deputy U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen outlined the rationale behind the case.

  • Mr. Rosen hailed the Google lawsuit as a “milestone” in the Justice Department’s efforts to foster competition in the internet markets, but he emphasized that this was not a stopping point — suggesting that the D.O.J. may continue to pursue other monopoly cases of technology companies.

  • Mr. Rosen said that Google “has maintained its monopoly power through exclusionary practices that are harmful to competition.”

  • “Google is the gateway to the internet and a search advertising behemoth,” he said.

  • Mr. Rosen said the Google lawsuit had “nothing to do” with complaints from President Trump and other Republicans that technology companies exercise political bias in policing speech on their platforms, calling it a separate worry from these “competitive concerns in the marketplace.”

  • The Justice Department lawyers were guarded about many aspects of the investigation, including their conversations with the company and whether they considered building out the case into other parts of Google’s business or their conversations with the company. They specifically avoided answering a question about whether the D.O.J. spoke to Larry Page, Google’s co-founder and former chief executive of its parent company, Alphabet.

  • The lawyers stopped short of calling for specific relief, such as pulling apart pieces of Google’s conglomerate of business lines. Remedies such as divestitures are typically reached further along in a case, experts say.

Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, said that if the seven states file a case, they would move to consolidate it with the Department of Justice’s.
Credit…Kathy Willens/Associated Press

Seven states may soon file a separate antitrust lawsuit against Google, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, announced on Tuesday. That’s in addition to the 11 states that joined the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday in filing a lawsuit against Google, accusing it of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising.

The attorneys general in the states that signed on to the Justice Department suit are all Republican. Ms. James and the attorneys general of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah said in a joint statement that they had been conducting separate but parallel bipartisan investigations into Google’s anticompetitive market behavior over the last year.

“This is a historic time for both federal and state antitrust authorities, as we work to protect competition and innovation in our technology markets,” the statement read. “We plan to conclude parts of our investigation of Google in the coming weeks.”

If the states decide to go ahead with the complaint, they would file a motion to consolidate their case with the Department of Justice’s lawsuit, and proceed to litigate the case cooperatively.

The Department of Justice sued Google on Tuesday, accusing the tech giant of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, is the government’s most significant legal challenge to a tech company’s market power in a generation.

Here’s how business leaders, policymakers, academics and antitrust experts are reacting to the news.

  • Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who launched an antitrust investigation of Google when he was Missouri’s attorney general, wrote on twitter: “I applaud this suit as desperately needed and long overdue. #BigTech’s free pass is over.”

  • David Cicilline, a Democratic congressman and the chairman of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, said in a tweet that he released a report three weeks ago detailing steps Google had taken to maintain and expand its monopoly power. “This step is long overdue,” he wrote, referring to the lawsuit. “It is time to restore competition online.”

  • Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, tweeted that Google’s “anticompetitive conduct is harming the public and American business,” and praised the Justice Department for “finally holding Google accountable.”

  • Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in antitrust issues, pointed out in a Twitter post that the Justice Department’s case against Google is similar to its case against Microsoft:

  • Avery Gardiner, a consumer advocate and a senior fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit organization focused on influencing technology policy, wrote on Twitter that the Department of Justice’s statistics show that it “didn’t bring even a single case for alleged abuse of monopoly power” from 2010 to 2020, except for in 2011 when there was one case.

  • Luther Lowe, senior vice president of public policy at Yelp, in his tweet warned against characterizing the lawsuit as a “partisan vendetta by the Trump Administration”:

  • George Slover, senior policy counsel at Consumer Reports, said that the increasing dominance of platforms like Google over digital commerce and communications is concerning for people across the political spectrum. “These powerful online platforms that connect us all on the internet must be held accountable, and competition must be protected,” Mr. Slover said in a statement.

  • Representative Jim Jordan, Republican from Ohio, applauded Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision to file the lawsuit in his tweet about the Google suit:

Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, sent emails to employees with advice about the antitrust suit.
Credit…Tsering Topgyal/Associated Press

Shortly after the Department of Justice filed its antitrust lawsuit against Google on Tuesday, the company’s top executives sent emails to its employees with a message: Stay focused.

And for Google, that means don’t go blabbing about antitrust issues.

“While we can expect some tough criticism and even misleading claims about our work, it’s important not to get distracted by this process, including speculating on legal issues internally or externally,” Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote in an internal email viewed by The New York Times.

Mr. Walker repeated his public statements that the case is “deeply flawed” and that Google is confident that the Justice Department’s complaint “doesn’t square with the facts of the law.” He noted that lots of successful companies have faced similar lawsuits and questions in the past.

In a separate email, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, urged Googlers to stay focused on their work so that users will continue to use its products, not because they have to but because they want to.

“Scrutiny is nothing new for Google, and we look forward to presenting our case,” Mr. Pichai wrote. “I’ve had Googlers ask me how they can help, and my answer is simple: Keep doing what you’re doing.”

In a lengthy post on Google’s website on Tuesday, Kent Walker, senior vice president of global affairs, set out the company’s response to the Justice Department’s lawsuit, which he labeled “deeply flawed.”

“This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers,” Mr. Walker wrote. “To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use.”

The post detailed Google’s rebuttals to the suit:

  • Google’s agreements with Apple and other device makers and carriers to surface its search product were no different from those that many other companies have, it said. “Other search engines, including Microsoft’s Bing, compete with us for these agreements,” Mr. Walker wrote.

  • Consumers are using Google because they want to, not because they have to, the company said. It said other search engines, such as Bing or Safari, were easily available for download if people chose to use them instead.

  • Mr. Walker said in the post that the lawsuit was wrong about how Americans use the internet. “It claims that we compete only with other general search engines. But that’s demonstrably wrong. People find information in lots of ways: They look for news on Twitter, flights on Kayak and Expedia, restaurants on OpenTable, recommendations on Instagram and Pinterest,” he wrote.

Attorney General William Barr. At his confirmation hearing in early 2019, he signaled that he would put the tech giants under new scrutiny.
Credit…T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

Attorney General William P. Barr has played an unusually active role in the investigation that led to the antitrust lawsuit that the Justice Department filed against Google on Tuesday.

He pushed prosecutors to wrap up their inquiries — and decide whether to bring a case — before Election Day. Most of the roughly 40 lawyers building the case had said they opposed bringing a complaint by Mr. Barr’s Sept. 30 deadline. Some said they would not sign the complaint, and several left the case this summer.

Mr. Barr, a former telecom executive at Verizon who once argued an antitrust case before the Supreme Court, signaled that he would put the tech giants under new scrutiny at his confirmation hearing in early 2019. He said that “a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers.”

Since then he has taken a hands-on approach to the investigation, putting it under the control of his deputy, Jeffrey Rosen, who in turn hired an aide from a major law firm to oversee the case and other technology matters. Mr. Barr’s grip over the case tightened when the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, recused himself from the investigation because he represented Google in its acquisition of the ad service DoubleClick in 2007.

In a blog post, Google called the lawsuit “deeply flawed” and said that it would not help consumers. The Trump administration has attacked Google, which owns YouTube, and other online platform companies as being slanted against conservative views.

The lawsuit is likely to outlast the Trump administration. The Justice Department spent more than a decade taking on Microsoft. The agency filed its lawsuit against the company in 1998 and the settlement was approved in 2002.

While it is possible that a new Democratic administration would review the strategy behind the case, experts said it was unlikely that it would be withdrawn under new leadership.

The Justice Department on Tuesday filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising.

The government was joined by 11 states, all with Republican attorneys general: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina and Texas.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Capitol on Sunday.
Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has advised the White House not to strike a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a new stimulus bill before Election Day, he told Republican senators privately on Tuesday, cautioning against reaching an agreement that most in the party cannot accept.

Mr. McConnell’s counsel, confirmed by three Republicans familiar with his remarks, threw cold water on Mr. Trump’s increasingly urgent push to enact a fresh round of pandemic aid before he faces voters on Nov. 3. It underscored the divisions within the party that have long hampered a compromise.

Ms. Pelosi had said earlier on Tuesday that she was “optimistic” a deal could be reached with the Trump administration in the coming days. But Republicans are growing increasingly anxious that Mr. Trump and his team are too eager to reach a multitrillion-dollar agreement and are conceding far too much to the Democrats. Republicans fear that scenario would force their colleagues up for re-election into a difficult choice of defying the president or alienating their fiscally conservative base by embracing the big-spending bill he has demanded.

Republicans in the Senate were also concerned that any vote on such a package could interfere with the Senate’s hasty timetable for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by early next week. Mr. McConnell said he told the White House he was particularly concerned a deal before then could inject unwanted unpredictability into the schedule, according to the Republicans, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a closed party luncheon.

Mr. McConnell made it clear that he knew his counsel was likely to leak out, making reference to the possibility that his remarks could appear in the news media, two of the Republicans said.

A short time later, outside the hearing room where Republicans met privately, Mr. McConnell told reporters the Senate would consider a broad bipartisan stimulus deal if the White House and Democrats struck one. But he would not say if it would hold a vote before Election Day, and members of his leadership team have warned that Republican votes could be hard to come by in the chamber.

“If a presidentially supported bill clears the House, at some point we’ll bring it to the floor,” he said, without elaborating on the timetable.

Ms. Pelosi and Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, were scheduled to discuss the matter at 3 p.m. Tuesday. “Hopefully, by the end of the day today, we’ll know where we all are,” the speaker said in an interview on Bloomberg TV.

On Sunday, Ms. Pelosi said that to pass a bill before the election, a deal would have to be reached within 48 hours. But in the interview on Tuesday, she softened that time limit, saying instead that legislation would have to be finished by the end of next week for aid to begin flowing by Nov. 3.

“It isn’t that this day was the day that we have a deal,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It was a day that we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step.”

Mr. McConnell planned a test vote later Tuesday on a narrow measure that would revive the Paycheck Protection Program, a popular small-business loan program. While Democrats support the program, they are expected to oppose the narrow bill, contending that a far broader package is needed.

  • Stocks on Wall Street rose on Tuesday, though trading was turbulent as investors reacted to developments between Democrats and Republicans over a new economic stimulus package.

  • After rising nearly 1.5 percent the S&P 500 gave back much of those gains late in the afternoon to end about half a percent higher. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had set Tuesday as a deadline for reaching an agreement on a package, but earlier in the day she suggested that she might be willing to extend that timeline.

  • Investors have watched the on-again, off-again talks closely in recent weeks, holding out hope for government spending that would support jobless Americans, small businesses, industries that have been hit hardest by the coronavirus pandemic, and state and local governments.

  • Stocks had received an early afternoon lift, following Ms. Pelosi’s appearance on Bloomberg Television, during which she sounded optimistic notes on the possibility of striking a deal on additional stimulus before the election.

  • But it was later reported that Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, advised the White House not to strike a deal before Election Day.

  • The odds remained long that Democrats and the Trump administration could enact a plan before the Nov. 3 election. If differences over funding levels and policy issues could be resolved, there are still Senate Republicans to contend with, who are unlikely to approve a spending package as large as the one under discussion.

  • Shares of the big tech companies rose even as the Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of maintaining an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising. The suit had been widely expected. Shares of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, were up more than 1 percent.

  • Some European stock indexes were pushed higher on Tuesday by a spate of positive earnings, which helped quell anxiety in markets about rising coronavirus cases and new social restrictions, including national lockdowns in Ireland and Wales. Reckitt Benckiser, the British owner of cleaning brands such as Dettol and Lysol, reported a jump in revenue on Tuesday. Logitech, which makes other computer hardware such as keyboards, said its quarterly sales exceeded $1 billion for the first time in the three months that ended in September.

Heathrow Airport in London. Starting Tuesday, travelers to Hong Kong can take a pre-departure test to meet entry requirements there.
Credit…Justin Tallis/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

While Britain struggles to get its national test-and-trace system running more efficiently, travelers will be able to get rapid coronavirus tests at an airport for the first time. Fliers leaving Heathrow Airport in London can get a rapid test for 80 pounds ($104). Starting Tuesday, people going to Hong Kong can take a pre-departure test to meet entry requirements there, the airport said.

The service will initially be offered for four weeks and passengers must book it ahead of time. The tests will be done by private-sector nurses, with results expected within an hour.

Heathrow, Britain’s largest airport, has been urging the government to allow it to offer more testing, particularly to arrivals, in an effort to boost travel. Heathrow argues that on-site testing would limit the need for two-week quarantines for people arriving in Britain. Government ministers have disagreed.

As an international hub, Heathrow Airport typically sees more than 80 million passengers a year. But during the pandemic, governments have introduced a range of travel restrictions, and passengers have been wary of venturing too far from home, causing overseas travel to plummet. The airport said 1.2 million passengers traveled through it in September, down 82 percent compared with 2019.

Heathrow hopes its new program could be the start of a more expansive testing regime in the airport. For now, the airport will offer a test known as LAMP, which is not as sensitive as PCR testing, used by the country’s national health service. PCR tests can detect active infections even before symptoms appear, though with a daylong turnaround. Heathrow plans to add antigen tests, another type of rapid testing, later.

The airport also said that travelers to Italy would be able to use the test, but Collinson, one of the companies administering the plan, said it was still in talks with the Italian government, the BBC reported.

Employees work at the Daimler production plant in Sindelfingen near Stuttgart, Germany.
Credit…Ralph Orlowski/Reuters

The German auto industry is bouncing back strongly from the pandemic as customers make purchases they postponed earlier in the year, earnings reports by BMW and Daimler indicate. Strong economic growth in China, a crucial market for both vehicle makers, has also helped.

But analysts say the miniboom may not last. Infections in Europe and the United States are surging, endangering sales in those two essential car markets. The profit figures “look too good to be sustainable,” Tim Rokossa, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, said in a note, referring to Daimler.

BMW said late Monday that its free cash flow, a measure of profit, quadrupled to 3 billion euros, or $3.6 billion, in the third quarter compared to the same period last year. Daimler said last week that operating profit rose to €3 billion in the quarter from €2.7 billion a year earlier.

Neither company disclosed net profit in the preliminary earnings reports. Daimler will issue a detailed earnings report on Friday and BMW will do so on Nov. 4.

German carmakers have a strong influence on the economic fate of Europe. Cars and trucks are Germany’s biggest export, and German carmakers buy components from all over the continent.

A sculpture of a Snapchat augmented-reality effect at a Snap event last year. The company is focusing on augmented-reality shopping during the pandemic.
Credit…Frederic J. Brown/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, reported a surge in quarterly revenue on Tuesday, as more users flocked to the social messaging app, though it continued to lose money.

Snap said revenue for the third quarter was $678 million, up 52 percent from a year ago, exceeding analysts’ estimates of $559 million. While some analysts had predicted that Snap’s growth would tail off as people returned to school, its number of daily active users rose 18 percent to 249 million.

But the company posted a net loss of nearly $200 million in the quarter, narrower than the loss of $227 million a year ago.

As shutdowns caused by the coronavirus pandemic have continued, Snap has focused on introducing more shopping experiences in augmented reality, allowing people to try on clothes using filters in the app.

“Our focus on delivering value for our community and advertising partners is yielding positive results during this challenging time,” Evan Spiegel, Snap’s chief executive, said in a statement. “The adoption of augmented reality is happening faster than we had previously anticipated, and we are working together as a team to execute on the many opportunities in front of us.”

Source

Continue Reading

Business

McConnell advises White House not to strike pre-election stimulus deal with Pelosi.

Published

on

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has advised the White House not to strike a deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a new stimulus bill before Election Day, he told Republican senators privately on Tuesday, cautioning against reaching an agreement that most in the party cannot accept.

Mr. McConnell’s counsel, confirmed by three Republicans familiar with his remarks, threw cold water on Mr. Trump’s increasingly urgent push to enact a fresh round of pandemic aid before he faces voters on Nov. 3. It underscored the divisions within the party that have long hampered a compromise.

Ms. Pelosi had said earlier on Tuesday that she was “optimistic” a deal could be reached with the Trump administration in the coming days. But Republicans are growing increasingly anxious that Mr. Trump and his team are too eager to reach a multitrillion-dollar agreement and are conceding far too much to the Democrats. Republicans fear that scenario would force their colleagues up for re-election into a difficult choice of defying the president or alienating their fiscally conservative base by embracing the big-spending bill he has demanded.

Republicans in the Senate were also concerned that any vote on such a package could interfere with the Senate’s hasty timetable for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by early next week. Mr. McConnell said he told the White House he was particularly concerned a deal before then could inject unwanted unpredictability into the schedule, according to the Republicans, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss a closed party luncheon.

Mr. McConnell made it clear that he knew his counsel was likely to leak out, making reference to the possibility that his remarks could appear in the news media, two of the Republicans said.

A short time later, outside the hearing room where Republicans met privately, Mr. McConnell told reporters the Senate would consider a broad bipartisan stimulus deal if the White House and Democrats struck one. But he would not say if it would hold a vote before Election Day, and members of his leadership team have warned that Republican votes could be hard to come by in the chamber.

“If a presidentially supported bill clears the House, at some point we’ll bring it to the floor,” he said, without elaborating on the timetable.

Ms. Pelosi and Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, were scheduled to discuss the matter at 3 p.m. Tuesday. “Hopefully, by the end of the day today, we’ll know where we all are,” the speaker said in an interview on Bloomberg TV.

On Sunday, Ms. Pelosi said that to pass a bill before the election, a deal would have to be reached within 48 hours. But in the interview on Tuesday, she softened that time limit, saying instead that legislation would have to be finished by the end of next week for aid to begin flowing by Nov. 3.

“It isn’t that this day was the day that we have a deal,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It was a day that we would have our terms on the table to be able to go to the next step.”

Mr. McConnell planned a test vote later Tuesday on a narrow measure that would revive the Paycheck Protection Program, a popular small-business loan program. While Democrats support the program, they are expected to oppose the narrow bill, contending that a far broader package is needed.

Source

Continue Reading

Business

The Google Antitrust Lawsuit Explained

Published

on

The Justice Department sued Google on Tuesday, accusing the company of illegally abusing its dominance in internet search in ways that harm competitors and consumers.

The suit is the first antitrust action against the company, owned by Alphabet, to result from investigations by the Justice Department, Congress, and 50 states and territories. State attorneys general and federal officials have also been investigating Google’s behavior in the market for online advertising. And a group of states is exploring a broader search case against Google.

Here is what you need to know about the suit.

This is one step against a single company. But it is also a response to the policy question of what measures, if any, should be taken to curb today’s tech giants, which hold the power to shape markets, communication and even public opinion.

Politics steered the timing and shape of this suit. Attorney General William P. Barr wanted to move quickly to take action before the election, making good on President Trump’s pledge to take on Big Tech. Eleven states joined the suit.

This is a monopoly defense case. The government says Google is illegally protecting its dominant position in the market for search and search advertising with the deals it has struck with companies like Apple. Google pays Apple billions of dollars a year to have its search engine set as the default option on iPhones and other devices.

The Justice Department is also challenging contracts Google has with smartphone makers that use Google’s Android operating system, requiring them to install its search engine as the default.

The Justice Department also investigated Google’s behavior and acquisitions in the overall market for digital advertising, which includes search, web display and video ads. Online advertising was the source of virtually all of Alphabet’s $34 billion in profit last year.

But the search case is more straightforward, giving the government its best chance to win. To prevail, the Justice Department has to show two things — that Google is dominant in search, and that its deals with Apple and other companies hobble competition in the search market.

In short: We’re not dominant, and competition on the internet is just “one click away.”

That is the essence of recent testimony in Congress by Google executives. Google’s share of the search market in the United States is about 80 percent. But looking only at the market for “general” search, the company says, is myopic. Nearly half of online shopping searches, it notes, begin on Amazon.

Next, Google says the deals the Justice Department is citing are entirely legal. Such company-to-company deals violate antitrust law only if they can be shown to exclude competition. Users can freely switch to other search engines, like Microsoft’s Bing or Yahoo Search, anytime they want, Google insists. Its search service, Google says, is the runaway market leader because people prefer it.

Consumer harm, the government argues, can result in several ways. Less competition in a market means less innovation and less consumer choice in the long run. That, in theory, could close the market to rivals that collect less data for targeted advertising than Google. Enhanced privacy, for example, would be a consumer benefit.

Goods that are free to consumers are not exempt from antitrust oversight. In the landmark Microsoft case of the late 1990s, the software giant bundled its web browser for free into its dominant Windows operating system. Microsoft lost because, using restrictive contracts, it bullied personal computer makers and others to try to prevent them from offering competing web browser software — competition that could have undermined the Windows monopoly.

Unless the government and Google reach a settlement, they’re headed to court. Trials and appeals in such cases can take years.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: Google will face continued scrutiny for a long time.

Source

Continue Reading

Trending