"She needs to balance the interests of publishers and advertisers and promote competition while simultaneously ensuring that any remedy - structural or behavioral - doesn't simply amount to a transfer of wealth from one massive entity to another. That said, unlike in the search case, where a forced spin-off of Chrome was never gonna happen - and even if it had, "it most certainly would have been overturned on appeal," Manne says - a court-ordered divestiture of GAM isn't beyond the pale in the ad tech case."
""A structural remedy is much more likely here than it ever was [in the search case]," Manne says. "It's very much a possibility here, and if it happens, it wouldn't be overturned on appeal." Nonetheless, Manne isn't convinced Judge Brinkema will go that way. He's not a betting man, he says, but if he were forced to make a prediction, he'd err on the side of no spin-off."
Judge Leonie Brinkema must weigh publisher and advertiser interests and promote competition while preventing remedies, structural or behavioral, from simply transferring wealth between dominant firms. A court-ordered divestiture of Google Ad Manager (GAM) is a feasible structural remedy in the ad tech case and is more plausible than similar remedies were in the search case, though courts may favor behavioral, conduct-focused fixes that mirror Google's preferred remedies. The DOJ's market definition risked being too narrow. Healthy competition could arise from reduced vertical integration and clearer market boundaries. Remedies should avoid creating windfalls for other large entities.
Read at AdExchanger
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]