The US government is taking a second stab at breaking up Google

Starting on Monday, the United States government will get another rift in persuading a federal judge to dismantle Google, after a different judge decided to maintain intact despite being found as a monopoly.

Google’s lawyers and the Ministry of Justice will return to a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia for a two -week trial on how to restore competition to the Google advertising technology markets illegally. This comes just weeks after the provincial court judge, the capital, Amit Mihata – who issued a historic ruling that is considered a monopoly in online research – provided him with a prescription to restore competition to the online search market. Mihata’s ruling did not ask the government’s specialization in treating Google damage, including the refusal to sell the required chrome browser from Google, and allow the company to continue to pay for the main distribution of sites on browsers and phones.

The Eastern Provincial Judge of Virginia Leonu Berinka – who also has eliminated that Google is to be a monopoly on market technology in the field of advertising technology – by Mihita’s decision. But she undoubtedly cared about him. However, there is a reason for the Ministry of Justice the belief that it can get a different result in the case of advertising technology when it comes to her request to dismantle Google.

Contrary to the case of research, part of Google’s business was that the government asked BRINKAMA to force it to get rid of central products in discussion. The Ministry of Justice requires the judge to ask Google to sell Excination ADX, which facilitates digital transactions for display ads that appear at the top or side of many websites. BRINKAMA found that Google illegally connecting ADX to the publisher ads server, Doubleclic for publishers (DFP), which web sites use to sell their advertising stocks – so it is reasonable to find that it is reasonable to completely separate Google. The government also wants Google to open a source of the auction logic behind the DFP, and if that competition does not adequately recover, it wants the judge to book the right to force Google to sell this product as well.

On the other hand, Google indicates that the problems that were found in their dealings can be repaired with some behavioral adjustments, and the Ministry of Justice’s proposals are distinguished as an attempt to relax the acquisitions that the judge did not find to be anti -competing in itself. Google suggested allowing the servers of the announcer’s publisher advertisement to reach offers in the actual time in ADX-, which is something that the government argued only to DFP, unusually disappointments and effectively coercion publishers to adhere to the Google-run Google platforms. It also says that it may allow publishers to export their data without fees, and commit to getting rid of restrictions on how publishers pricing their advertising stock known as the unified pricing rules. Google can also refrain from using auction tactics such as the first appearance and the recent view of its advertising products, which the Ministry of Justice argued unfairly Google.

Like every anti -monopoly experience, there is still a long way in front of us. Google should wait for the ruling on ways of recession before you can resume the discovery of the basic monopoly, which means that even if BRINKAMA is asking for separation, this may be years until it is implemented. But to what extent you will work to go, a lot will say about the judges’ regime’s willingness to dismantle large technology.