Page 2: More opportunities for websites and advertisers

Contents

In order to prevent misconduct, especially in the development of new services with artificial intelligence, Google is to be prohibited from securing exclusive access to internet content. This is because individual website operators are usually dependent on the traffic brought in via Google's search engine, so they cannot risk alienating the company. In addition, Google is to be obliged to allow websites to prohibit the use of their content for artificial intelligence training or inclusion in artificial intelligence outputs.

The preview is particularly vague as regards measures to combat Google's particular market power in text advertising around general search engine results. In any case, the focus should be on economies of scale and new advertising methods with AI. In addition, Google will have to give advertisers more data and allow them not to use certain features, including the unsolicited expansion of set search terms.

Court to threaten punitive measures

In order to enforce the conditions, Google could have to finance a technical committee to be set up by the court and provide relevant documents and a responsible manager on an ongoing basis. Special mention is made of the storage of documents including internal chat messages, as Google has been caught illegally deleting chats with potentially incriminating content. Mandatory compliance training for employees also fits in with this.

In addition, the governments are imposing bans, according to which Google may not participate in competitors or their success and may not retaliate against anyone who uses the requirements or contributes to their enforcement. Finally, the court should put rods in Google's window: These means, including the forced sale of parts of the group, are to be applied if Google willfully or systematically violates requirements.

Details to follow

The plaintiffs emphasize that it is still too early for detailed proposals. On the one hand, a new "discovery" is currently underway, in which the plaintiffs are inspecting internal Google documents. On the other hand, the authorities want to give "interested" third parties the opportunity to comment. The topic should not only be the markets identified as relevant in the court proceedings, but also neighboring markets as well as the effects of conditions imposed by other courts. For example, the US Federal District Court for Northern California has just imposed restrictions on Google's Play Store.

Whatever the measures turn out to be: They are not only intended to help make up for the damage done so far, but also to prevent any attempts by Google to create new monopolies in search as well as advertising around search results. The governments leading the lawsuit repeatedly mention possible new service features with artificial intelligence (AI).

The governments want to present details in November, to which the court and Google can then respond. The plaintiffs then plan to prepare a revised version of their proposals by March 2025.

The court case relates to the search engine and advertising displayed on it. It is pending in the US Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, without a jury. There were originally two lawsuits there. One brought by the US government and eleven US states(USA et al v Google et al, Ref. 1:20-cv-03010), and one brought by virtually all other US states and some US territories(Colorado et al v Google et al, Ref. 1:20-cv-03715). The two lawsuits have been consolidated. The only US state not participating is Alabama.

• The Proposed Remedy Framework in the original

(ds)