Antitrust battle latest: Google, Facebook 'colluded' to smash Apple's privacy protections

Amended Texas complaint alleges backroom efforts to maintain ad dominance and more

Several years ago, to deal with the competitive threat of header bidding – a way for multiple ad exchanges to get a fair shot at winning an automated auction for ad space – Google allegedly hatched a plan called "Jedi" to ensure that its ad exchange always won.

And in 2017, after Facebook announced plans to support header bidding, Google, it's claimed, struck a deal with Facebook – dubbed "Jedi Blue" – in which the two internet behemoths would "work together to identify users using Apple products," and set up "quotas for how often Facebook would win publishers’ auctions."

The Jedi project is described in an amended complaint, filed Friday, that expands the December 2020 antitrust claim against Google, brought by Texas, 14 other US states, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Texas antitrust case against Google is one of four ongoing government-backed claims in the US alleging the web search giant competes unfairly. A year ago, the US Justice Department filed a federal antitrust lawsuit. Colorado also filed a complaint last December on behalf of a group of 38 states. Then there's the complaint filed in July over Android and the Google Play Store, backed by 36 US states and commonwealths, along with Washington DC.

The amended complaint in the Texas litigation expands on a claim in the initial complaint about Google's alleged effort to delay privacy legislation, with help from Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft, at a closed-door meeting between the corporations on August 6, 2019.

We have been successful in slowing down and delaying the [European ePrivacy Regulation] process and have been working behind the scenes hand in hand with the other companies

To make the case that Google's publicly stated concern about privacy is a sham, the new text describes a Google document prepared in advance of the meeting that said, "we have been successful in slowing down and delaying the [ePrivacy Regulation] process and have been working behind the scenes hand in hand with the other companies," referring to the European Commission's data protection rules.

Header bidding emerged around 2015 as a way to bypass Google's control of the ad auction ecosystem and the fees it charged. By 2016, the court filing explains, about 70 per cent of major publishers were using header bidding to offer their ad space to multiple ad exchanges at the same time, not just Google, to get the best deal from advertisers.

"Google quickly realized that this innovation substantially threatened its exchange’s ability to demand a very large – 19 to 22 percent – cut on all advertising transactions," the revised complaint says. "Header bidding also undermined Google’s ability to trade on inside and non-public information from one side of the market to advantage itself on the other – a practice that in other markets would be considered insider trading or front running."

Google secretly made its own exchange win, even when another exchange submitted a higher bid

Initially, the amended complaint says, Google appeared to accommodate publishers by allowing them to use its servers to send their ad space inventory to be sold on more than one exchange at a time.

"However, Google secretly made its own exchange win, even when another exchange submitted a higher bid," the amended complaint says. "Google’s codename for this program was Jedi – a reference to Star Wars."

"And as one Google employee explained internally, Google deliberately designed Jedi to avoid competition, and Jedi consequently harmed publishers. In Google’s words, the Jedi program 'generates suboptimal yields for publishers and serious risks of negative media coverage if exposed externally.'"

Google's dominance of the online ad ecosystem, the complaint argues, allows it to collect between 22 and 42 per cent of ad dollars that would otherwise go to publishers and web content producers.

'Forestall and diminish child privacy protections'

It's also alleged that Google tried to coordinate efforts among other tech firms "to forestall and diminish child privacy protections in proposed regulations by the FTC" and legislators. The document Google prepared for the August 6, 2019 tech company cabal indicated the ad biz wanted its peers to align their positions on child safety and "sought to rein in Microsoft" so it would not compete on privacy.

The alleged Jedi Blue partnership between Google and Facebook, outlined in the initial complaint, is explained in more detail in the latest filing. The two companies, it's said, have been working closely to help Facebook "recognize users in auctions and bid and win more often."

"For example, Google and Facebook have integrated their software development kits (SDKs) so that Google can pass Facebook data for user ID cookie matching," the amended complaint says. "They also coordinated with each other to harm publishers through the adoption of Unified Pricing rules…"

The filing continued:

The companies also have been working together to improve Facebook’s ability to recognize users using browsers with blocked cookies, on Apple devices, and on Apple’s Safari browser, thereby circumventing one Big Tech company’s efforts to compete by offering users better privacy.

The Register asked Google whether it wished to comment on the allegations in the amended complaint, and in particular to explain how the company reconciles past statements like, "We take privacy very seriously," with alleged internal sentiment about working behind the scenes to hinder privacy regulation.

"Just because [Texas Attorney General Ken] Paxton says something doesn't make it true," a Google spokesperson said in an email to The Register. "We've been clear about our support for consistent privacy rules around the globe. For example, we have been calling on Congress to pass federal privacy legislation for years."

In a message to El Reg, Zach Edwards, co-founder of web analytics biz Victory Medium, said the expanded claims in the complaint should alarm publishers.

"The newly unredacted documents paint a picture of Google and Facebook's behavior that should not surprise anyone, but publishers and ad buyers should be deeply concerned about the tricks, exploits, backroom deals and arbitrary fees that have gutted their revenues over the past decade, all while both Google and Facebook knew they were being deceptive," he said.

"The references to 'Jedi Blue' and various Star Wars references in the now-unredacted sections of these documents are extremely gross, and everyone needs to understand that Google was attempting to poison the head bidding advertising standard by creating numerous problems, and apparently overtly lying about certain problems to publishers, in order to 'convince publishers to make changes themselves.'"

Google, he said, branded its relationship with Facebook as if they were Jedi in the Star Wars franchise who could manipulate people with mind tricks.

"Google thinks so little of publishers and other advertising buyers that they executed on plans to lie to these partners, in order to cripple a separate advertising standard that was competing against Google on certain publisher websites," Edwards said. ®

Similar topics

Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021