Google is asking the court to dismiss all cases against it that allege the search engine giant of violating anti-trust laws. In the same way, the company defended its pact with Meta Platforms in this regard.
The agreement between Meta and Google’s parent company Alphabet was signed in 2018. And according to it, Google has never restricted Facebook from making use of any competitive exchanges for ads. The statements were announced by the company’s attorney recently.
The news is in context to a number of US states such as Texas that sued the firm over this pact that was dubbed Jedi Blue. At the same time, there was mention of another anticompetitive conduct. According to that, Google was accused of monopolizing the tech market.
Many felt the company was in control of what technology would be bought and sold, followed by which services are available online for advertising. But both Google and fellow tech giant Meta have defended their agreement and refuted claims related to wrongdoing.
A recently held hearing at the Manhattan Court was attended by Google’s attorney, Eric Mahr. He continued to argue how the deal paved the way for healthy competition as it enabled Facebook to sell ads via the platform’s ad exchange. This was in accordance with and on behalf of various web pages or mobile apps located on Facebook.
But there was plenty of resistance to such claims as a lawyer defending Texas continued to argue about how Google saw its own interest and only entered the deal. This way, Meta would gain benefits through this exchange of buying and selling ads.
In return, Meta put a halt to its own plans of adopting new technology that would affect Google’s role as a keen monopoly player in the world of online advertising. Therefore, a lot of things that were taking place were not mentioned in the agreement, the Texas lawyer argued. She says that it’s because no one likes to enter the jail and hence practiced safety from a distance.
Google was seen requesting the judge to dismiss the anti-trust case as it feels all of its behavior in different is legal. The firm’s lawyer also argued about how the company does not need to design products to grab a hold of the interests belonging to fellow archrivals.
Then there was a further argument from the opposing side about how Google has only tried to make the situation worse for its rivals by creating a surrounding where others found it hard or impossible to compete. A common example was provided related to manipulating auctions linked to online advertising. And in end, it was just Google’s products that won.
Therefore, there is talk about how the pact between Google and Meta is now under scrutiny by regulators situated across the United Kingdom and Europe.
The judge is yet to deliver a verdict but his closing remarks included how he found the arguments to be very interesting from both ends. However, he said it did not indicate how he would end up ruling.
Read next: Delete these business apps right now if you care about your online privacy
The agreement between Meta and Google’s parent company Alphabet was signed in 2018. And according to it, Google has never restricted Facebook from making use of any competitive exchanges for ads. The statements were announced by the company’s attorney recently.
The news is in context to a number of US states such as Texas that sued the firm over this pact that was dubbed Jedi Blue. At the same time, there was mention of another anticompetitive conduct. According to that, Google was accused of monopolizing the tech market.
Many felt the company was in control of what technology would be bought and sold, followed by which services are available online for advertising. But both Google and fellow tech giant Meta have defended their agreement and refuted claims related to wrongdoing.
A recently held hearing at the Manhattan Court was attended by Google’s attorney, Eric Mahr. He continued to argue how the deal paved the way for healthy competition as it enabled Facebook to sell ads via the platform’s ad exchange. This was in accordance with and on behalf of various web pages or mobile apps located on Facebook.
But there was plenty of resistance to such claims as a lawyer defending Texas continued to argue about how Google saw its own interest and only entered the deal. This way, Meta would gain benefits through this exchange of buying and selling ads.
In return, Meta put a halt to its own plans of adopting new technology that would affect Google’s role as a keen monopoly player in the world of online advertising. Therefore, a lot of things that were taking place were not mentioned in the agreement, the Texas lawyer argued. She says that it’s because no one likes to enter the jail and hence practiced safety from a distance.
Google was seen requesting the judge to dismiss the anti-trust case as it feels all of its behavior in different is legal. The firm’s lawyer also argued about how the company does not need to design products to grab a hold of the interests belonging to fellow archrivals.
Then there was a further argument from the opposing side about how Google has only tried to make the situation worse for its rivals by creating a surrounding where others found it hard or impossible to compete. A common example was provided related to manipulating auctions linked to online advertising. And in end, it was just Google’s products that won.
Therefore, there is talk about how the pact between Google and Meta is now under scrutiny by regulators situated across the United Kingdom and Europe.
The judge is yet to deliver a verdict but his closing remarks included how he found the arguments to be very interesting from both ends. However, he said it did not indicate how he would end up ruling.
Read next: Delete these business apps right now if you care about your online privacy