Google responded to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust proposals for breaking up the company to address its dominance in search and online advertising, asserting that the remedies will harm user security, raise costs for consumers across industries, and stifle AI innovation.
Google’s response presented three arguments on why the DOJ proposals may backfire on consumers and disrupt innovation across industries. They also made two points about search and advertising that challenge widely held opinions.
Three Reasons Why DOJ Proposals May Harm Innovation
Google makes three arguments about the DOJ proposals hat outline how they might cause harm to consumers and lead to a decrease in innovation.
1. Privacy And Security Risks
One of the DOJ’s proposals is for Google to share its search query, click and search data with competitors. Google’s response asserts that sharing that information with competitors will create a privacy and security risks for users because search queries can contain sensitive and highly personal information that could compromise users security by increasing the likelihood that bad actors can access the information.
Google’s response cited a New York Times article from 2006 that documents how a data breach at AOL showed how a user’s search data reveals personal data despite that their actual identities are hidden. The reporters were able to use search queries to track down a 62 year old widow in Georgia.
The New York Times reported:
“It did not take much investigating to follow that data trail to Thelma Arnold, a 62-year-old widow who lives in Lilburn, Ga., frequently researches her friends’ medical ailments and loves her three dogs. “Those are my searches,” she said, after a reporter read part of the list to her.
AOL removed the search data from its site over the weekend and apologized for its release, saying it was an unauthorized move by a team that had hoped it would benefit academic researchers.”
2. Risk Of Stifling AI Innovation
The current boom in AI is largely due to many of Google’s discoveries that were subsequently open sourced, none more profound than transformer technology which was invented and open sourced in 2017. By open-sourcing this innovation, Google laid the foundation for generative AI models like ChatGPT and many other AI applications that rely on transformers today.
Google claims that the remedies the DOJ seeks will “hold back” innovation because the industry itself is at its infancy, is highly competitive and there are no monopolies needing a remedy to fix.
The response asserts:
“There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry — skewing investment, distorting incentives, hobbling emerging business models — all at precisely the moment that we need to encourage investment, new business models, and American technological leadership.”
3. DOJ Proposals Will Negatively Impact Many Industries
Google has invested billions of dollars to create, maintain and improve both Android and Chrome and open source the technology, allowing multiple industries and businesses to grow around both technologies.
Android is an open source operating system for mobile phones that has become the global leader because it’s open source and allows mobile phone technology to become accessible to billions around the world at reasonable prices. Chrome browser is another open source technology that serves as the foundation for other competing browsers.
Both Android and Chrome underpin multiple technologies and industries from televisions, fitness devices, automobile devices, laptops and app ecosystems.
Google claims that the DOJ’s proposal to split Android from Google would cause a decrease in investment in the technology and raise the cost of all the devices that currently depend on Android and Chrome.
Two Claims That Challenge Assumptions About Search And PPC
Google defends its dominance in advertising and search by making claims that may contradict commonly held assumptions and challenge businesses to rethink what a disruption in both.
1. Restrictions On Search Distribution
Google challenges restrictions on partnerships with other platforms that allow Google Search to be the default search engine. Google claims that these restrictions are overbroad and may result in less income for open source innovators like Mozilla and cause an increase in costs to consumers for products like mobile phones.
2. Proposals For Online Advertising Will Harm Consumers And Businesses
Google claims that changes to their online advertising business will make it less useful for businesses and ultimately negatively impact consumers. They also claim that changes to the current system will negatively impact small publishers.
They write:
“Google’s innovative ads system has leveled the playing field for small businesses and publishers. Small advertisers can reach customers the same way as large ones do — with no minimum spend and no upfront commitments. And this ads system helps small websites earn revenue from online advertising, just like large publishers.”
Both claims challenge many popularly held assumptions about Google’s dominance in search and online advertising.
New: What The Google Antitrust Verdict Could Mean For The Future Of SEO
Google At A Crossroad
The DOJ is presenting remedies for what they claim are monopolistic practices that have harmed competition. Google rebuts those claims by offering examples of how their innovations have created opportunities to grow new industries, create competition and decrease costs for consumers.
Read Google’s response here:
DOJ’s radical and sweeping proposals risk hurting consumers, businesses, and developers
Featured Image by Shutterstock/Longfin Media