
In the ongoing legal battle between media giant Gannett and tech titan Google, the courtroom drama escalated yet again with Google firing back at Gannett’s antitrust complaint. As the legal process unfolds, it appears that a resolution might be a long way off.
Google responded vigorously to Gannett’s accusations, contending that Gannett failed to provide substantial grounds justifying special treatment for claims that the court had previously dismissed in a similar case. In their filing made last Friday, Google urged the court to dismiss Gannett’s antitrust complaint, which was filed in June, regarding Google’s alleged anti-competitive practices.
The crux of Google’s argument revolved around the dismissal of Gannett’s claims related to Google’s tools and products, including exchange bidding, encrypted user IDs, accelerated mobile pages (AMP), enhanced dynamic allocation (EDA), minimum bid to win, and line-item capping. Google vehemently denied Gannett’s assertion that it was coerced into participating in exchange bidding or that exchange bidding was anti-competitive. Moreover, Google challenged Gannett’s failure to demonstrate how EDA, a tool enhancing dynamic allocation, harmed competition in any market.
Read more: Google Accuses India’s Competition Commission of Protecting Amazon
According to Google’s filing, Gannett also fell short in proving that encrypted user IDs and AMP were anti-competitive. Google asserted that Gannett failed to show that AMP forced publishers to abandon client-side header bidding, a key point in Gannett’s complaint.
The filing from Google concluded with a strong statement, advocating for the dismissal of Gannett’s claims with prejudice. Google argued that Gannett, being an experienced litigant in this matter, had already been privy to the court’s orders and Google’s counterarguments against previous complaints.
However, Gannett remained resolute, citing that the court had already sustained allegations that Google committed multiple anticompetitive acts over a decade. The legal battle between these industry giants continues, leaving the fate of Gannett’s antitrust complaint hanging in the balance as the court deliberates on the complex issues raised by both parties.
Source: Media Post
Featured News
Public Interest Groups Push for Rehearing on FCC Net Neutrality Case
Feb 18, 2025 by
CPI
Australian Regulator Backs Virgin Australia-Qatar Airways Alliance
Feb 18, 2025 by
CPI
EU Scales Back AI Regulations to Compete with US in Global Tech Race
Feb 18, 2025 by
CPI
Democratic Lawmakers Raise Concerns Over Musk’s Task Force and Taxpayer Data Security
Feb 18, 2025 by
CPI
UK’s CMA Provisionally Approves Poultry Feed Merger
Feb 18, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – International Criminal Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
CPI
The Antitrust Division’s Recent Work to Combat International Cartels
Jan 23, 2025 by
Emma Burnham & Benjamin Christenson
Information Sharing: The New Frontier of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
Brian P. Quinn, Casey Kovarik & Michael Tubach
The Key Role of Guidelines on Exchanges of Information Among Competitors and the Divergent Transatlantic Paths
Jan 23, 2025 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz & Albert Metz
Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Compliance
Jan 23, 2025 by
Richard Powers, Tara O’Malley & Cory Gordon