Willie R. Tubbs, FISM News
Late last week, the attorneys general of 17 states filed new documents in a lawsuit in which they allege a litany of unfair or illegal business practices by Google and Facebook.
While this latest filing did little to change the nature of the suit, or even progress it, the filing was far less redacted than previous versions and revealed new details as to what the plaintiffs allege the companies’ highest-ranking officials to have done.
The lawsuit contains myriad allegations against the text giants, but a key area of complaint is what is known as “header bidding,” the automated auction process by which online ads are bought and sold.
Previous filings alleged the companies agreed to cooperate with one another in this area, which had the effect of choking out competition.
However, it was unknown until the most recent filing, that the complainants allege that Facebook (now Meta) CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai were each aware of the effort, known as “Jedi Blue.”
An email the plaintiffs say originated from Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and was sent to Zuckerberg reads, “We’re nearly ready to sign and need your approval to move forward.”
The plaintiffs, headed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argue that Facebook and Google reached a backroom deal in 2018 under which Google would give Facebook “information, speed, and other advantages” in ad auctions in exchange for Facebook agreeing to only participate in a set percentage of auctions.
Longtime critics of Google and Facebook found vindication in the most recent filing.
“The unredacted complaint in the ad tech suit should put to rest the argument that Google wins just because its products are ‘better,’” David Chavern, CEO of the News Media Alliance, a trade group that represents thousands of newspapers, told Axios, adding, “Anti-competitive side deals and market manipulation don’t count as innovation. Google has been purposely suppressing news publishers’ finances for years and then asking us to say thank you.”
Facebook and Google have long held that the case is without merit. The defendants’ representatives also bristled at the claim that the deal was made illegally or in secret, and point to years-old announcements of partnerships as evidence.
Axios quoted a Meta spokesperson as having said, “Meta’s non-exclusive bidding agreement with Google and the similar agreements we have with other bidding platforms, have helped to increase competition for ad placements. These business relationships enable Meta to deliver more value to advertisers while fairly compensating publishers, resulting in better outcomes for all.”