Brian Thompson, the slain CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was gunned down on Wednesday while top executives at his company have reportedly been under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for alleged insider trading and a monopoly.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Andrew Ferguson on Monday urged the antitrust commission to investigate “unlawful collusion” between big tech platforms and stop advertiser boycotts, which he believes threaten competition.
The DOJ and Google presented their closing arguments in the antitrust trial focusing on the internet giant’s stranglehold over the online ads business, with both sides reiterating their main points from the three-week trial held in Alexandria, Virginia.
The FTC is launching an investigation into Microsoft’s alleged anticompetitive practices, some of which may have been directed at the U.S. government, according to a recent report by ProPublica.
President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to curtail big tech’s power aligns with about three-quarters of Americans who are concerned about its vast influence, according to a JL Partners poll obtained exclusively by Breitbart News.
Apple and Google risk a formal UK investigation over their dominance of web browsers on cell phones, according to a provisional decision targeting the tech giants’ stranglehold on mobile operating systems.
The DOJ has filed court documents proposing the tech giant sell off its Chrome browser and be prohibited from making payments to remain the default search engine on third-party platforms as remedies for its monopolistic practices.
Google has engaged in a systematic effort over the past 15 years to create a culture of concealment and minimize internal communications to avoid potential antitrust lawsuits, according to documents and testimony from recent trials.
Google has reacted angrily to reports that the DOJ will propose forcing the tech giant to sell its Chrome web browser business as part of ongoing antitrust remedies.
The DOJ has decided it will ask a federal judge to force Google to sell off its Chrome web browser as a result of the government’s successful antitrust case against the internet giant’s monopolistic actions in its search business according to a new report by Bloomberg.
Google has been accused by multiple federal judges of engaging in tactics to conceal and destroy internal communications that could be used against the company in ongoing antitrust lawsuits. One judge called Google’s suppression of evidence “the most serious and disturbing” he had seen in his career as a judge.
Shivaun and Adam Raff’s price comparison website, Foundem, was crushed by Google flexing its monopoly muscles, prompting a 15-year legal battle that resulted in a record $2.58 billion fine for the tech giant.
Former President Donald Trump recently accused Google of being “rigged” against him, claiming that the search engine fails to display positive stories about him. However, he also indicated that he might not advocate for the break up the company if he wins the upcoming election, citing concerns over China’s technological ambitions.
As the government’s second antitrust trial heads towards closing arguments next month, the DOJ is contemplating asking a federal judge to compel Google to sell parts of its business to address the verdict of its first antitrust trial — that the internet giant has monopoly power with its search engine.
The DOJ and Google have wrapped up their arguments in the high-stakes antitrust trial against the internet giant, with closing arguments scheduled for November.
An expert witness called by Google in its ongoing antitrust trial has asserted that the tech giant does not hold monopoly power over the advertising market, contradicting claims made by the DOJ.
Google has filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission, accusing Microsoft of using unfair licensing contracts to stifle competition in the cloud computing industry. Google’s charges become especially interesting in light of the fact that the internet giant has itself been the subject of two different antitrust cases this year.
In an ongoing antitrust trial, Google is pushing back against the U.S. Justice Department’s accusations that it operates its ad business as a monopoly. In the face of emails and other internal documents laying out Google’s plan to crush rivals by increasing its stranglehold on the advertising market, one executive testified Monday that “We keep looking for ways to make products better.”
Google employees and executives attempted to hide potentially damaging communications from investigators by using auto-deleting chats and marking emails “privileged and confidential” as a regular course of business — sneaky moves that may backfire on the internet giant as the second antitrust trial against the company rages on.
As the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google continues, it is becoming increasingly clear that the judge must decide whether to believe what Google executives wrote in emails and chats or what they have said on the witness stand — like one witness who claimed his emails on crushing competition were “jet-lagged ramblings.”
As Google’s second antitrust trial this year continues, a Boston University economist testified that Google’s stranglehold over the advertising market allows it to charge between 19 and 27 percent higher rates to advertisers than a “competitive market” would allow.
Internal Google documents released during the ongoing antitrust trial against the tech giant have shed light on the company’s efforts to maintain its dominance in the digital advertising industry through exclusivity deals and tying its ad-tech businesses together.
Google is currently on trial for allegedly abusing its dominance in the digital advertising industry, which is valued at approximately $200 billion. Here are a the key points that emerged from the first week in the courtroom.
A top attorney for Google, currently defending the tech giant in a landmark antitrust trial, has been revealed to be a key advisor to the Kamala Harris presidential campaign, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest and political bias.
Google knew that publishers would be unhappy when it implemented measures in 2019 to prevent them from diverting ad sales to competitors, it recognized that its stranglehold over the digital ads market would prevent them from fleeing the internet giant’s ad marketplace, according to internal documents presented at the tech giant’s antitrust trial on Thursday.
A Google executive’s remarks from 2009 about the company’s aim to “crush” competitors in the digital advertising market have come to light during an ongoing federal antitrust trial against the tech giant that focuses on its stranglehold over the ad-tech industry.
A former advertising technology executive at News Corp testified that the company considered moving away from Google’s advertising products in 2017 but ultimately decided against it due to potential revenue losses of at least $9 million. The testimony came during the second day of the latest antitrust trial exploring Google’s absolute dominance of the internet.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust trial against Google kicked off on Monday, with the opening day focusing heavily on the tech giant’s impact on publishers through its dominant position in the digital advertising market.
The European Union’s highest court ruled against Apple and Google on Tuesday in two landmark legal cases, delivering a major victory for the bloc’s efforts to regulate the technology industry, and leaving the tech giants facing billions in tax bills and penalties.
Google is set to face another significant legal challenge as the Justice Department’s antitrust case against the company’s ad-tech practices heads to trial.
Yelp, a long-time rival of Google, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the search giant, accusing it of engaging in anticompetitive practices in the local search market.
Conservative and populist tech experts are slamming Kamala Harris and the Democrats for attempting to blame Biden-Harris inflation on AI algorithms. In addition to calling for nationwide rent control, Vice President Harris is now echoing far left law firms and
The cozy relationship between the Kamala Harris campaign and Big Tech giants including Google have sparked concerns about potential leniency in antitrust cases if she is elected president.
In the wake of a recent court decision that found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing the online search market, the DOJ is weighing options to restore competition, including a potential breakup of the tech giant.
Matt Gaetz and Mike Lee plan to hold Google accountable should it try to avoid a court-ordered remedy to address its monopolistic status.
Elon Musk’s X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and several of its member companies, accusing them of violating federal antitrust laws by orchestrating a boycott of advertising on the platform.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Amit Mehta declared Google a monopolist that has maintained its dominance through illegal practices, marking the most significant antitrust victory since the Microsoft case in the 1990s. The decision could have massive implications for not only Google, but other tech titans including Apple and Microsoft.
Google has lost an antitrust lawsuit over its search arrangements on smartphone devices, with a federal judge ruling that the tech giant has illegally held a monopoly in search and text advertising over the past decade.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, who once visited Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, is bundling millions of campaign donations from Silicon Valley giants for Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential bid. With the donations comes the demand for Harris to fire the nation’s top trust-buster, Lina Khan, from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) while also throwing out United States tariffs on foreign imports.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) engineered some post-Independence Day fireworks by securing appearances from two executives whose companies are allegedly colluding to silence conservative voices in violation of antitrust laws.
