Report: Justice Department mulling antitrust suit against Google
The U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly hired a well-known antitrust litigator for a possible court challenge to a planned advertising deal between Google and Yahoo.
Former Walt Disney Co. Vice Chairman Sandy Litvack has been hired to head any legal challenge to the ad deal, according to an article published Monday by Dow Jones News Service.
It was not clear, the article said, whether any eventual lawsuit would target only the Google-Yahoo deal--or represent a broader assault on the Mountain View, Calif.-based company's business practices. Lawyers have been reportedly deposing witnesses and subpoenaing documents to support a courtroom challenge, which probably would be filed in Washington, D.C.
Litvack was an assistant attorney general for antitrust in the Carter administration; until recently he was a partner at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson. As of Monday, his name no longer appeared on the firm's list of attorneys.
His now-deleted Hogan & Hartson bio said: "Sandy has successfully defended a number of shareholder derivative suits, as well as a variety of antitrust cases. His work has entailed representing both plaintiffs and defendants in both jury and non-jury cases."
Also this week, the Association of National Advertisers sent a letter to the Justice Department opposing the Yahoo-Google search advertising deal.
The U.S. Department of Justice began gathering information from third parties in a probe of the advertising deal between Google and Yahoo.
Yahoo announced the nonexclusive partnership in June under which rival Google would supply it with some search ads, a move that could increase Yahoo search revenue but that also gives Google even more power in the market. Yahoo expects the 10-year deal to raise revenue by $800 million in its first year and to provide an extra $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow.
The partnership idea came to light during Microsoft's attempt to acquire Yahoo, which put more pressure on the Internet company to improve its financial results.
Faced with that financial challenge and a desire to push the Google ad deal through, Yahoo proposed to regulators that it subject the search advertising deal to a review process similar to one used for major mergers under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, said a source familiar with Yahoo.
Under the proposal, which was made to regulators when Microsoft still had a buyout offer on the table for Yahoo, the Internet search pioneer said it would give the Justice Department three and half months to review the deal before it implements the search advertising partnership.
Google's share of the U.S. search market reached 70.77 percent in July, according to Hitwise's most recent numbers. Yahoo's share of the market declined to 18.55 percent at the same time.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
Then again, I doubt this will go anywhere. Unless Google is trying to sign up black voters, they probably won't be much of a blip on the USA's radar.
I mean, you don't really believe that do you? Like, do you actually believe that everything goes perfectly as planned all the time? Like do you really think it's all unicorns and rainbows and stuff? Because if you do I really hate to break it to you. That's just not how things go. That's not how the world works.
Also, since we're having this conversation, even though I hate to do this, but since you're old enough to post here it's probably time to tell you, Santa Claus isn't real either. Just let you in on that. It's just the parents pretending.
And Santa Claus MAY exist, however as long as we accept that he does not actually fly reindeer and give presents on December 24th, we can safely say that there is AT LEAST a %99.9999999 chance that he exists. so nyah.
The deal is better than illogical idea of collaboration of giant news agency.
Lets not forget that the same Google has been very instrumental in using every means at thier disposal using their rabid lawyers to get thge European Union to keep their teeth on Microsoft's jugular. No outfit on the planet has done more to get the EU to terrorise Microsft than Google has. It will be very good indeed if both the DJ and the EU kept their teeth on Google throat for tghe next 20 years, like Gogle has been doing everything tin their power to get them to do to Microsoft.
What goes round, come around.
Isn't life wonderful?
Look, its simple. Build a better mouse trap. People scorn Google saying that they are too powerful, control too much of the 'search' market, control too much of the advertising market. They currently have the best product to search for information on the internet (at least in my opinion) Why would I use anything else? So I can waste time digging through pages and pages of results? Google gives me what I am looking for and usually on the first page of results. Apparently a lot of other people feel the same way. Because they have the 'eyeballs', they can charge higher rates for their advertising. This is the same way advertising works in every other medium available. Why do you think it cost 2.5 million dollars for a 30 second ad during the superbowl? Because they have the audience. How, in any way, shape, or form, has Google tried to keep anyone out of the search or advertising market? What anti competitive practices have they used to thwart competition? Oh yeah, NONE.
My personal take on the situation is that Google could care less about consumers interest and is way more interested in Googles interests. What makes some consumers angry like in several of the posts so far is that Google has been instrumental in sicking anti-trust regulators on Microsoft in the US and Europe. Their take is this- what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Frankly I too take the same position that two can play that game. In Microsoft's case, its poetic justice to be able to turn the table on them and let them sit in the hot seat. Now they too can experience what it feels like when you let greed and power determine your decision making process as in the case of the Yahoo deal that allows the door to swing open for government regulators.
Life is full of ironies isn't it!
If this was an exclusive deal, I would tend to agree with you. Problem is, this deal is non-exclusive. Microsoft, Ask, or any other advertising company can get in on the action here.
What I don't understand is your math. Where does this 90% come from? 90% of what? This isn't a 'search' deal. This is an advertising deal. Yahoo will continue to use their own search algorithm, but will show Google ads for searches they have no inventory to support. Yahoo will not be using Googles search algorithm.
Agian, please show me where Google has kept any company out of the search or advertising market. As far as them putting the screws to Microsoft, that's just business. The tech landscape is littered with the carcasses of Microsoft one time 'partners'. If you led a company and someone was gunning for your customers and revenue, would you just sit back and take whatever they throw at you? Competition is always good. And what Google has done has shown a lot of other companies they can actually compete against Microsoft versus partner with them and accept the crumbs Microsoft throws their way.
I don't really know if anyone at Google considers it the 'hot seat'. I beleive they achieved what they wanted to achieve. I don't beleive Google really cares if the deal falls through. The advertising deal was just gravy. Besides, if the deal falls through, Yahoo has to pony up 250 million to Google.
I personally wouldn't call full government oversite of everything they do on current and future versions of Windows through 2012, a slap on the hand. They have ordered many changes, with full documentation including code to competitors that have cost millions to alter and produce. The EU has fined Microsoft over 2.4 BILLION dollars. South Korea has fined them 32 Million, all in all approaching 3 Billion dollars in fines alone.
Again, as I understand it, ad sharing is not the complete issue. Having over 90% market share coupled with advertising deals that increase that percentage is the sticking point. If they go above 90% on their own, not problem, but once you hit that mark you can't be helped by the #2 company to do it.
Again, you are trying to cloud the issue. What is this 90% you keep referring to? No company involved in anything here has 90% of anything.
"Again, as I understand it, ad sharing is not the complete issue"
See, right there is the problem. You dont understand the issue. This deal has nothing to do with 'search'. Go back and get your facts straight and then you make comments. Learn, understand, speak.
And there are a whole lot more fines than the 2 you just mentioned. But that is what you get when you ABUSE your power. Microsoft never had a problem until they CREATED one. There is actually no law against having a monopoly. It is when you ABUSE your monopoly that you get in trouble. And that is exactly what they did. That is where the fines came from, not because they were successful based on superior products or services.
Now, one more time, how EXACTLY is Google ABUSING their power?
- by JCPayne September 9, 2008 9:53 PM PDT
- Also on Verizon MSN, Yahoo and AOL are the ONLY providers you are allowed to subscribe to for $21 dollars through Verizon. Allowing Microsoft and Yahoo means you would only have Microsoft-Yahoo and AOL for low cost DSL. That---- is way---- more of an anti trust issue. All the other DSL providers cost $29 dollars and up via Verizon's POTS system.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)