Select Page

Weather Carson City Nevada

 

 

audiology title=

barrelhead

 

prp

oceancreek

Coast Tree

Sema Roofing

wandr

occc

audiology title=

barrelhead

prp

oceancreek

Coast Tree

Sema Roofing

wandr

occc

barrelhead


 

Coast Tree

Nevada joins other states in suing Google

Attorney General Ford Joins Multistate Lawsuit Seeking to End Google’s Illegal Monopoly in Search

Bipartisan Coalition of 38 Attorneys General Allege Google Illegally Maintained a Monopoly, Created Insurmountable Barriers to Entry for Competitors

Carson City, NV – Today, Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford joined a bipartisan coalition of 38 attorneys general suing Google LLC for anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The states allege that Google illegally maintains its monopoly power over general search engines and related advertising markets through a series of anticompetitive exclusionary contracts and conduct. As a result, Google has deprived consumers of competition that could lead to greater choice, innovation and better privacy protections. Furthermore, Google has exploited its market position to accumulate and leverage data to the detriment of consumers.

“Virtually every day, consumers rely on search engines to find essential goods and

services,” said AG Ford. “But consumers do not realize how their choices are impacted

by conduct behind the scenes. The same was true 40 years ago when the Department

of Justice pursued the telephone monopoly, and 20 years ago when it addressed

monopolistic conduct in the internet-browsing context. As technology evolves, it is

important to keep competition alive for the benefit of all consumers. This lawsuit seeks

to do just that.”

The states’ complaint is consistent with the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on October 20th which alleged that Google improperly maintains its monopoly power in general search and search advertising through the use of exclusionary agreements. The states’ filing asserts additional allegations and describes Google’s monopoly maintenance scheme as a multi-part effort.

The lawsuit also alleges that Google:

  •   Uses exclusionary agreements and other practices to limit the ability of rival general search engines and potential rivals to reach consumers. This conduct cements Google as the go-to search engine on computers and mobile devices;
  •   Disadvantages users of its search-advertising management tool, SA360, by promising that it would not favor Google search advertising over that of competing search engines such as Bing. Instead, Google continuously favors advertising on its own platform, inflating its profits to the detriment of advertisers and consumers; and
  •   Discriminates against specialized search sites – such as those that provide travel, home repair, or entertainment services – by depriving them access to prime real estate because these competing sites threaten Google’s revenue and dominant position.The attorneys general expand on the U.S. DOJ’s allegation that Google’s anticompetitive conduct continues. As explained in the complaint, the company seeks to deploy the same exclusionary contracting tactics to monopolize the emerging ways consumers access general search engines, such as through their home smart speakers, televisions, or in their cars. In doing so, Google is depriving consumers of competitive choices and blocking innovation.

    The states also go further than the U.S. DOJ in explaining how Google’s acquisition and command of vast amounts of data – obtained in increasing part because of consumers’ lack of choice – has fortified Google’s monopoly and created significant barriers for potential competitors and innovators.

    The attorneys general ask the court to halt Google’s illegal conduct and restore a competitive marketplace. The states also seek to unwind any advantages that Google gained as a result of its anticompetitive conduct, including divestiture of assets as appropriate. Finally, the court is asked to provide any additional relief it determines appropriate, as well as reasonable fees and costs to the states.

    The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in conjunction with a Motion to Consolidate seeking to combine the states’ case with the pending U.S. DOJ case. The filed complaint is attached.

The attorneys general argue that more competition in the general search engine market

would benefit consumers, for example, through improved privacy protections and more

targeted results and opportunities for consumers. Competitive general search engines

also could offer better quality advertising and lower prices to advertisers.

In addition to Nevada, other joining states included: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico.

barrelhead


Coast Tree

flocs

Coast Tree

flocs

Coast Tree

flocs