google search

Google’s plan to keep AI out of search trial remedies isn’t going very well

AI, ai search, Antitrust law, copilot, generative ai, Google, google search, google search monopoly, microsoft, Policy, search engines / Kris Guyer / November 27, 2024

DOJ: AI is not its own market

Judge: AI will likely play “larger role” in Google search remedies as market shifts.

Google got some disappointing news at a status conference Tuesday, where US District Judge Amit Mehta suggested that Google’s AI products may be restricted as an appropriate remedy following the government’s win in the search monopoly trial.

According to Law360, Mehta said that “the recent emergence of AI products that are intended to mimic the functionality of search engines” is rapidly shifting the search market. Because the judge is now weighing preventive measures to combat Google’s anticompetitive behavior, the judge wants to hear much more about how each side views AI’s role in Google’s search empire during the remedies stage of litigation than he did during the search trial.

“AI and the integration of AI is only going to play a much larger role, it seems to me, in the remedy phase than it did in the liability phase,” Mehta said. “Is that because of the remedies being requested? Perhaps. But is it also potentially because the market that we have all been discussing has shifted?”

To fight the DOJ’s proposed remedies, Google is seemingly dragging its major AI rivals into the trial. Trying to prove that remedies would harm Google’s ability to compete, the tech company is currently trying to pry into Microsoft’s AI deals, including its $13 billion investment in OpenAI, Law360 reported. At least preliminarily, Mehta has agreed that information Google is seeking from rivals has “core relevance” to the remedies litigation, Law360 reported.

The DOJ has asked for a wide range of remedies to stop Google from potentially using AI to entrench its market dominance in search and search text advertising. They include a ban on exclusive agreements with publishers to train on content, which the DOJ fears might allow Google to block AI rivals from licensing data, potentially posing a barrier to entry in both markets. Under the proposed remedies, Google would also face restrictions on investments in or acquisitions of AI products, as well as mergers with AI companies.

Additionally, the DOJ wants Mehta to stop Google from any potential self-preferencing, such as making an AI product mandatory on Android devices Google controls or preventing a rival from distribution on Android devices.

The government seems very concerned that Google may use its ownership of Android to play games in the emerging AI sector. They’ve further recommended an order preventing Google from discouraging partners from working with rivals, degrading the quality of rivals’ AI products on Android devices, or otherwise “coercing” manufacturers or other Android partners into giving Google’s AI products “better treatment.”

Importantly, if the court orders AI remedies linked to Google’s control of Android, Google could risk a forced sale of Android if Mehta grants the DOJ’s request for “contingent structural relief” requiring divestiture of Android if behavioral remedies don’t destroy the current monopolies.

Finally, the government wants Google to be required to allow publishers to opt out of AI training without impacting their search rankings. (Currently, opting out of AI scraping automatically opts sites out of Google search indexing.)

All of this, the DOJ alleged, is necessary to clear the way for a thriving search market as AI stands to shake up the competitive landscape.

“The promise of new technologies, including advances in artificial intelligence (AI), may present an opportunity for fresh competition,” the DOJ said in a court filing. “But only a comprehensive set of remedies can thaw the ecosystem and finally reverse years of anticompetitive effects.”

At the status conference Tuesday, DOJ attorney David Dahlquist reiterated to Mehta that these remedies are needed so that Google’s illegal conduct in search doesn’t extend to this “new frontier” of search, Law360 reported. Dahlquist also clarified that the DOJ views these kinds of AI products “as new access points for search, rather than a whole new market.”

“We’re very concerned about Google’s conduct being a barrier to entry,” Dahlquist said.

Google could not immediately be reached for comment. But the search giant has maintained that AI is beyond the scope of the search trial.

During the status conference, Google attorney John E. Schmidtlein disputed that AI remedies are relevant. While he agreed that “AI is key to the future of search,” he warned that “extraordinary” proposed remedies would “hobble” Google’s AI innovation, Law360 reported.

Microsoft shields confidential AI deals

Microsoft is predictably protective of its AI deals, arguing in a court filing that its “highly confidential agreements with OpenAI, Perplexity AI, Inflection, and G42 are not relevant to the issues being litigated” in the Google trial.

According to Microsoft, Google is arguing that it needs this information to “shed light” on things like “the extent to which the OpenAI partnership has driven new traffic to Bing and otherwise affected Microsoft’s competitive standing” or what’s required by “terms upon which Bing powers functionality incorporated into Perplexity’s search service.”

These insights, Google seemingly hopes, will convince Mehta that Google’s AI deals and investments are the norm in the AI search sector. But Microsoft is currently blocking access, arguing that “Google has done nothing to explain why” it “needs access to the terms of Microsoft’s highly confidential agreements with other third parties” when Microsoft has already offered to share documents “regarding the distribution and competitive position” of its AI products.

Microsoft also opposes Google’s attempts to review how search click-and-query data is used to train OpenAI’s models. Those requests would be better directed at OpenAI, Microsoft said.

If Microsoft gets its way, Google’s discovery requests will be limited to just Microsoft’s content licensing agreements for Copilot. Microsoft alleged those are the only deals “related to the general search or the general search text advertising markets” at issue in the trial.

On Tuesday, Microsoft attorney Julia Chapman told Mehta that Microsoft had “agreed to provide documents about the data used to train its own AI model and also raised concerns about the competitive sensitivity of Microsoft’s agreements with AI companies,” Law360 reported.

It remains unclear at this time if OpenAI will be forced to give Google the click-and-query data Google seeks. At the status hearing, Mehta ordered OpenAI to share “financial statements, information about the training data for ChatGPT, and assessments of the company’s competitive position,” Law360 reported.

But the DOJ may also be interested in seeing that data. In their proposed final judgment, the government forecasted that “query-based AI solutions” will “provide the most likely long-term path for a new generation of search competitors.”

Because of that prediction, any remedy “must prevent Google from frustrating or circumventing” court-ordered changes “by manipulating the development and deployment of new technologies like query-based AI solutions.” Emerging rivals “will depend on the absence of anticompetitive constraints to evolve into full-fledged competitors and competitive threats,” the DOJ alleged.

Mehta seemingly wants to see the evidence supporting the DOJ’s predictions, which could end up exposing carefully guarded secrets of both Google’s and its biggest rivals’ AI deals.

On Tuesday, the judge noted that integration of AI into search engines had already evolved what search results pages look like. And from his “very layperson’s perspective,” it seems like AI’s integration into search engines will continue moving “very quickly,” as both parties seem to agree.

Whether he buys into the DOJ’s theory that Google could use its existing advantage as the world’s greatest gatherer of search query data to block rivals from keeping pace is still up in the air, but the judge seems moved by the DOJ’s claim that “AI has the ability to affect market dynamics in these industries today as well as tomorrow.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Google’s plan to keep AI out of search trial remedies isn’t going very well Read More »

Welcome to Google’s nightmare: US reveals plan to destroy search monopoly

android, Antitrust law, duckduckgo, Google, google ai overviews, google chrome, google search, google search monopoly, Policy, us department of justice / Tim Belzer / November 21, 2024

Hepner expects that the DOJ plan may be measured enough that the court may only “be interested in a nip-tuck, not a wholesale revision of what plaintiffs have put forward.”

Kamyl Bazbaz, SVP of public affairs for Google’s more privacy-focused rival DuckDuckGo, released a statement agreeing with Hepner.

“The government has put forward a proposal that would free the search market from Google’s illegal grip and unleash a new era of innovation, investment, and competition,” Bazbaz said. “There’s nothing radical about this proposal: It’s firmly based on the court’s extensive finding of fact and proposes solutions in line with previous antitrust actions.”

Bazbaz accused Google of “cynically” invoking privacy among chief concerns with a forced Chrome sale. That “is rich coming from the Internet’s biggest tracker,” Bazbaz said.

Will Apple finally compete with Google in search?

The remedies the DOJ has proposed could potentially be game-changing, Bazbaz told Ars, not just for existing rivals but also new rivals and startups the court found were previously unable to enter the market while it was under Google’s control.

If the DOJ gets its way, Google could be stuck complying with these proposed remedies for 10 years. But if the company can prove after five years that competition has substantially increased and it controls less than 50 percent of the market, the remedies could be terminated early, the DOJ’s proposed final judgment order said.

That’s likely cold comfort for Google as it prepares to fight the DOJ’s plan to break up its search empire and potentially face major new competitors. The biggest risk to Google’s dominance in AI search could even be its former partner, whom the court found was being paid handsomely to help prop up Google’s search monopoly: Apple.

On X (formerly Twitter), Hepner said that cutting off Google’s $20 billion payments to Apple for default placements in Safari alone could “have a huge effect and may finally kick Apple to enter the market itself.”

Welcome to Google’s nightmare: US reveals plan to destroy search monopoly Read More »

Google loses DOJ’s big monopoly trial over search business

Antitrust law, department of justice, Google, google monopoly trial, google search, Policy / Mike M. / August 5, 2024

Huge loss for Google —

Google’s exclusive deals maintained monopolies in two markets, judge ruled.

Ashley Belanger – Aug 5, 2024 7: 30 pm UTC

Google just lost a massive antitrust trial over its sprawling search business, as US district judge Amit Mehta released his ruling, showing that he sided with the US Department of Justice in the case that could disrupt how billions of people search the web.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in his opinion. “It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

The verdict will likely come as a shock to Google, which had long argued that punishing Google for being the best in search would be “unprecedented” and frequently pointed to the DOJ’s lack of direct evidence. However, Mehta found the limited direct evidence compelling, especially “Google’s admission that it does not ‘consider whether users will go to other specific search providers (general or otherwise) if it introduces a change to its Search product.'”

“Google’s indifference is unsurprising,” Mehta wrote. “In 2020, Google conducted a quality degradation study, which showed that it would not lose search revenue if were to significantly reduce the quality of its search product. Just as the power to raise price ‘when it is desired to do so’ is proof of monopoly power, so too is the ability to degrade product quality without concern of losing consumers.”

He also wrote that the DOJ’s indirect evidence “easily establishes Google’s monopoly power in search” and concluded that “the fact that Google makes product changes without concern that its users might go elsewhere is something only a firm with monopoly power could do.”

Google didn’t lose every battle in this big fight with the DOJ. Mehta ruled that Google did not have monopoly power in search advertising, agreed that there was no market for general search advertising, and declined to sanction Google for allegedly destroying evidence by “failing to preserve its employees’ chat messages.”

Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, provided a statement to Ars, confirming that Google plans to appeal.

“This decision recognizes that Google offers the best search engine, but concludes that we shouldn’t be allowed to make it easily available,” Walker said. “We appreciate the Court’s finding that Google is ‘the industry’s highest quality search engine, which has earned Google the trust of hundreds of millions of daily users,’ that Google ‘has long been the best search engine, particularly on mobile devices,’ ‘has continued to innovate in search,’ and that ‘Apple and Mozilla occasionally assess Google’s search quality relative to its rivals and find Google’s to be superior.’ Given this, and that people are increasingly looking for information in more and more ways, we plan to appeal. As this process continues, we will remain focused on making products that people find helpful and easy to use.”

Google monopolizes two markets, judge ruled

Mehta ruled that Google spending billions on exclusive distribution agreements with companies like Apple helped the tech giant maintain monopolies in two markets, general search services and general text advertising.

The US government had argued that Google used these exclusive deals to block out competitors like Bing or DuckDuckGo, “by ensuring that all of Android and Apple and mobile users are offered Google, either as the default general search engine or the only general search engine, Google’s deals with Android and Apple clearly have a significant effect in preserving its monopoly.” The DOJ successfully argued that blocks rivals from reaching the “critical level necessary” to “pose a real threat to Google’s monopoly.”

Mehta noted that Google’s dominance had “gone unchallenged for well over a decade,” partly due to a “largely unseen advantage over its rivals: default distribution.” He found that Google’s exclusive distribution deals foreclosed a “substantial share” of the markets and allowed Google to earn more revenues. Google then shared spiking revenues with device and browser developers—spending up to $26 billion in 2021 alone for exclusive deals, the trial revealed.

Google did all this, Mehta said, to ensure that “most devices in the United States come preloaded exclusively with Google” and to force “Google’s rivals to find other ways to reach users.” The DOJ successfully argued that this posed “significant barriers that protect Google’s market dominance in general search,” with rivals having to overcome “high capital costs—”to the tune of billions of dollars,” Mehta wrote—”Google’s control of key distribution channels, brand recognition, and scale.”

Barriers to entry in general text advertising are similarly “high,” Mehta said, with new entrants facing “the same major obstacles as would the developer of a new” search engine.

One of the most scrutinized exclusive deals was between Google and Apple, which was estimated at $20 billion in 2022. “This is nearly double the payment made in 2020,” Mehta noted, suggesting that Google increasingly valued the deal locking its search engine as the default in Safari as a way to shore up its search dominance.

“Google has long recognized that, if Apple were to develop and deploy its own search engine as the default” search tool “in Safari, it would come at great cost to Google,” Mehta wrote. Without the deal, Google “would lose around 65 percent of its revenue, even assuming that it could retain some users without the Safari default” placement. But “Apple has decided not to enter general search,” Mehta said, likely because it “would forego significant revenues” and potentially face user backlash if it stopped partnering with Google. Similarly high revenue loss would occur if “Google were to lose the Android defaults,” Mehta said.

None of the pro-competitive benefits that Google claimed justified the exclusive deals persuaded Mehta, who ruled that “importantly,” Google “exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads”—and thus earned “monopoly profits.”

“That Google makes changes to its text ads auctions without considering its rivals’ prices is something that only a firm with monopoly power is able to do,” Mehta wrote. And “Google in fact has profitably raised prices substantially above the competitive level. That makes ‘the existence of monopoly power” “clear.”

Ultimately, Mehta ruled that “Google has no true competitor” in general search and without any “genuine” competition, “over the last decade, Google’s grip on the market has only grown stronger.” Further, he found that “Google understands there is no genuine competition for the defaults because it knows that its partners cannot afford to go elsewhere,” disagreeing with Google’s arguments that the default deals were not exclusive.

“The key question then is this: Do Google’s exclusive distribution contracts reasonably appear capable of significantly contributing to maintaining Google’s monopoly power in the general search services market?” Mehta wrote. “The answer is ‘yes.'”

This is a developing story and is being updated.

Google loses DOJ’s big monopoly trial over search business Read More »

Google won’t downrank top deepfake porn sites unless victims mass report

ai deepfakes, ai sex images, deepfake porn, explicit deepfakes, Google, google search, non-consensual intimate imagery, Policy / Rejus Almole / July 31, 2024

Today, Google announced new measures to combat the rapidly increasing spread of AI-generated non-consensual explicit deepfakes in its search results.

Because of “a concerning increase in generated images and videos that portray people in sexually explicit contexts, distributed on the web without their consent,” Google said that it consulted with “experts and victim-survivors” to make some “significant updates” to its widely used search engine to “further protect people.”

Specifically, Google made it easier for targets of fake explicit images—which experts have said are overwhelmingly women—to report and remove deepfakes that surface in search results. Additionally, Google took steps to downrank explicit deepfakes “to keep this type of content from appearing high up in Search results,” the world’s leading search engine said.

Victims of deepfake pornography have previously criticized Google for not being more proactive in its fight against deepfakes in search results. Surfacing images and reporting each one is a “time- and energy-draining process” and “constant battle,” Kaitlyn Siragusa, a Twitch gamer with an explicit OnlyFans frequently targeted by deepfakes, told Bloomberg last year.

In response, Google has worked to “make the process easier,” partly by “helping people address this issue at scale.” Now, when a victim submits a removal request, “Google’s systems will also aim to filter all explicit results on similar searches about them,” Google’s blog said. And once a deepfake is “successfully removed,” Google “will scan for—and remove—any duplicates of that image that we find,” the blog said.

Google’s efforts to downrank harmful fake content have also expanded, the tech giant said. To help individuals targeted by deepfakes, Google will now “lower explicit fake content for” searches that include people’s names. According to Google, this step alone has “reduced exposure to explicit image results on these types of queries by over 70 percent.”

However, Google still seems resistant to downranking general searches that might lead people to harmful content. A quick Google search confirms that general searches with keywords like “celebrity nude deepfake” point searchers to popular destinations where they can search for non-consensual intimate images of celebrities or request images of less famous people.

For victims, the bottom line is that problematic links will still appear in Google’s search results for anyone willing to keep scrolling or anyone intentionally searching for “deepfakes.” The only step Google has taken recently to downrank top deepfake sites like Fan-Topia or MrDeepFakes is a promise to demote “sites that have received a high volume of removals for fake explicit imagery.”

It’s currently unclear what Google considers a “high volume,” and Google declined Ars’ request to comment on whether these sites would be downranked eventually. Instead, a Google spokesperson told Ars that “if we receive a high volume of successful removal sites from a specific website under this policy, we will use that as a ranking signal and demote the site in question for queries where the site might surface.”

Currently, Google’s spokesperson said, Google is focused on downranking “queries that include the names of individuals,” which “have the highest potential for individual harm.” But more queries will be downranked in the coming months, Google’s spokesperson said, and Google continues to tackle the “technical challenge for search engines” of differentiating between “explicit content that’s real and consensual (like an actor’s nude scenes)” and “explicit fake content (like deepfakes featuring said actor),” Google’s blog said.

“This is an ongoing effort, and we have additional improvements coming over the next few months to address a broader range of queries,” Google’s spokesperson told Ars.

Deepfake trauma “never ends”

In its blog, Google said that “these efforts are designed to give people added peace of mind, especially if they’re concerned about similar content about them popping up in the future.”

But many deepfake victims have claimed that dedicating hours or even months to removing harmful content doesn’t provide any hope that the images won’t resurface. Most recently, one deepfake victim, Sabrina Javellana, told The New York Times that even after her home state Florida passed a law against deepfakes, that didn’t stop the fake images from spreading online.

She’s given up on trying to get the images removed anywhere, telling The Times, “It just never ends. I just have to accept it.”

According to US Representative Joseph Morelle (D-NY), it will take a federal law against deepfakes to deter more bad actors from harassing and terrorizing women with deepfake porn. He’s introduced one such law, the Preventing Deepfakes of Intimate Images Act, which would criminalize creating deepfakes. It currently has 59 sponsors in the House and bipartisan support in the Senate, Morelle said on a panel this week discussing harms of deepfakes, which Ars attended.

Morelle said he’d spoken to victims of deepfakes, including teenagers, and decided that “a national ban and a national set of both criminal and civil remedies makes the most sense” to combat the problem with “urgency.”

“A patchwork of different state and local jurisdictions with different rules” would be “really hard to follow” for both victims and perpetrators trying to understand what’s legal, Morelle said, whereas federal laws that impose a liability and criminal penalty would likely have “the greatest impact.”

Victims, Morelle said, every day suffer from mental, physical, emotional, and financial harms, and as a co-panelist, Andrea Powell, pointed out, there is no healing because there is currently no justice for survivors during a period of “prolific and catastrophic increase in this abuse,” Powell warned.

Google won’t downrank top deepfake porn sites unless victims mass report Read More »

Google’s AI Overview is flawed by design, and a new company blog post hints at why

AI, ai hallucinations, ai overview, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, confabulation, Google, Google I/O, google search, hallucination, large language models, Liz Reid, machine learning, making things up, openai, reddit / Rejus Almole / June 1, 2024

guided by voices —

Google: “There are bound to be some oddities and errors” in system that told people to eat rocks.

Benj Edwards – May 31, 2024 7: 47 pm UTC

A selection of Google mascot characters created by the company. — Enlarge / The Google “G” logo surrounded by whimsical characters, all of which look stunned and surprised.

On Thursday, Google capped off a rough week of providing inaccurate and sometimes dangerous answers through its experimental AI Overview feature by authoring a follow-up blog post titled, “AI Overviews: About last week.” In the post, attributed to Google VP Liz Reid, head of Google Search, the firm formally acknowledged issues with the feature and outlined steps taken to improve a system that appears flawed by design, even if it doesn’t realize it is admitting it.

To recap, the AI Overview feature—which the company showed off at Google I/O a few weeks ago—aims to provide search users with summarized answers to questions by using an AI model integrated with Google’s web ranking systems. Right now, it’s an experimental feature that is not active for everyone, but when a participating user searches for a topic, they might see an AI-generated answer at the top of the results, pulled from highly ranked web content and summarized by an AI model.

While Google claims this approach is “highly effective” and on par with its Featured Snippets in terms of accuracy, the past week has seen numerous examples of the AI system generating bizarre, incorrect, or even potentially harmful responses, as we detailed in a recent feature where Ars reporter Kyle Orland replicated many of the unusual outputs.

Drawing inaccurate conclusions from the web

On Wednesday morning, Google's AI Overview was erroneously telling us the Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn were available in 1993. — Enlarge / On Wednesday morning, Google’s AI Overview was erroneously telling us the Sony PlayStation and Sega Saturn were available in 1993.

Kyle Orland / Google

Given the circulating AI Overview examples, Google almost apologizes in the post and says, “We hold ourselves to a high standard, as do our users, so we expect and appreciate the feedback, and take it seriously.” But Reid, in an attempt to justify the errors, then goes into some very revealing detail about why AI Overviews provides erroneous information:

AI Overviews work very differently than chatbots and other LLM products that people may have tried out. They’re not simply generating an output based on training data. While AI Overviews are powered by a customized language model, the model is integrated with our core web ranking systems and designed to carry out traditional “search” tasks, like identifying relevant, high-quality results from our index. That’s why AI Overviews don’t just provide text output, but include relevant links so people can explore further. Because accuracy is paramount in Search, AI Overviews are built to only show information that is backed up by top web results.

This means that AI Overviews generally don’t “hallucinate” or make things up in the ways that other LLM products might.

Here we see the fundamental flaw of the system: “AI Overviews are built to only show information that is backed up by top web results.” The design is based on the false assumption that Google’s page-ranking algorithm favors accurate results and not SEO-gamed garbage. Google Search has been broken for some time, and now the company is relying on those gamed and spam-filled results to feed its new AI model.

Even if the AI model draws from a more accurate source, as with the 1993 game console search seen above, Google’s AI language model can still make inaccurate conclusions about the “accurate” data, confabulating erroneous information in a flawed summary of the information available.

Generally ignoring the folly of basing its AI results on a broken page-ranking algorithm, Google’s blog post instead attributes the commonly circulated errors to several other factors, including users making nonsensical searches “aimed at producing erroneous results.” Google does admit faults with the AI model, like misinterpreting queries, misinterpreting “a nuance of language on the web,” and lacking sufficient high-quality information on certain topics. It also suggests that some of the more egregious examples circulating on social media are fake screenshots.

“Some of these faked results have been obvious and silly,” Reid writes. “Others have implied that we returned dangerous results for topics like leaving dogs in cars, smoking while pregnant, and depression. Those AI Overviews never appeared. So we’d encourage anyone encountering these screenshots to do a search themselves to check.”

(No doubt some of the social media examples are fake, but it’s worth noting that any attempts to replicate those early examples now will likely fail because Google will have manually blocked the results. And it is potentially a testament to how broken Google Search is if people believed extreme fake examples in the first place.)

While addressing the “nonsensical searches” angle in the post, Reid uses the example search, “How many rocks should I eat each day,” which went viral in a tweet on May 23. Reid says, “Prior to these screenshots going viral, practically no one asked Google that question.” And since there isn’t much data on the web that answers it, she says there is a “data void” or “information gap” that was filled by satirical content found on the web, and the AI model found it and pushed it as an answer, much like Featured Snippets might. So basically, it was working exactly as designed.

Enlarge / A screenshot of an AI Overview query, “How many rocks should I eat each day” that went viral on X last week.

Google’s AI Overview is flawed by design, and a new company blog post hints at why Read More »

Apple, Google, and Meta are failing DMA compliance, EU suspects

alphabet, App Store, Apple, Apple App Store, facebook, Facebook subscription, Google, Google Play Store, google search, Instagram, instagram subscription, Meta, Policy / Kris Guyer / March 25, 2024

Enlarge / EU Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton talks to media about non-compliance investigations against Google, Apple, and Meta under the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Not even three weeks after the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) took effect, the European Commission (EC) announced Monday that it is already probing three out of six gatekeepers—Apple, Google, and Meta—for suspected non-compliance.

Apple will need to prove that changes to its app store and existing user options to swap out default settings easily are sufficient to comply with the DMA.

Similarly, Google’s app store rules will be probed, as well as any potentially shady practices unfairly preferencing its own services—like Google Shopping and Hotels—in search results.

Finally, Meta’s “Subscription for No Ads” option—allowing Facebook and Instagram users to opt out of personalized ad targeting for a monthly fee—may not fly under the DMA. Even if Meta follows through on its recent offer to slash these fees by nearly 50 percent, the model could be deemed non-compliant.

“The DMA is very clear: gatekeepers must obtain users’ consent to use their personal data across different services,” the EC’s commissioner for internal market, Thierry Breton, said Monday. “And this consent must be free!”

In total, the EC announced five investigations: two against Apple, two against Google, and one against Meta.

“We suspect that the suggested solutions put forward by the three companies do not fully comply with the DMA,” antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said, ordering companies to “retain certain documents” viewed as critical to assessing evidence in the probe.

The EC’s investigations are expected to conclude within one year. If tech companies are found non-compliant, they risk fines of up to 10 percent of total worldwide turnover. Any repeat violations could spike fines to 20 percent.

“Moreover, in case of systematic infringements, the Commission may also adopt additional remedies, such as obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it or banning the gatekeeper from acquisitions of additional services related to the systemic non-compliance,” the EC’s announcement said.

In addition to probes into Apple, Google, and Meta, the EC will scrutinize Apple’s fee structure for app store alternatives and send retention orders to Amazon and Microsoft. That makes ByteDance the only gatekeeper so far to escape “investigatory steps” as the EU fights to enforce the DMA’s strict standards. (ByteDance continues to contest its gatekeeper status.)

“These are the cases where we already have concrete evidence of possible non-compliance,” Breton said. “And this in less than 20 days of DMA implementation. But our monitoring and investigative work of course doesn’t stop here,” Breton said. “We may have to open other non-compliance cases soon.

Google and Apple have both issued statements defending their current plans for DMA compliance.

“To comply with the Digital Markets Act, we have made significant changes to the way our services operate in Europe,” Google’s competition director Oliver Bethell told Ars, promising to “continue to defend our approach in the coming months.”

“We’re confident our plan complies with the DMA, and we’ll continue to constructively engage with the European Commission as they conduct their investigations,” Apple’s spokesperson told Ars. “Teams across Apple have created a wide range of new developer capabilities, features, and tools to comply with the regulation. At the same time, we’ve introduced protections to help reduce new risks to the privacy, quality, and security of our EU users’ experience. Throughout, we’ve demonstrated flexibility and responsiveness to the European Commission and developers, listening and incorporating their feedback.”

A Meta spokesperson told Ars that Meta “designed Subscription for No Ads to address several overlapping regulatory obligations, including the DMA,” promising to comply with the DMA while arguing that “subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries.”

The EC’s announcement came after all designated gatekeepers were required to submit DMA compliance reports and scheduled public workshops to discuss DMA compliance. Those workshops conclude tomorrow with Microsoft and appear to be partly driving the EC’s decision to probe Apple, Google, and Meta.

“Stakeholders provided feedback on the compliance solutions offered,” Vestager said. “Their feedback tells us that certain compliance measures fail to achieve their objectives and fall short of expectations.”

Apple and Google app stores probed

Under the DMA, “gatekeepers can no longer prevent their business users from informing their users within the app about cheaper options outside the gatekeeper’s ecosystem,” Vestager said. “That is called anti-steering and is now forbidden by law.”

Stakeholders told the EC that Apple’s and Google’s fee structures appear to “go against” the DMA’s “free of charge” requirement, Vestager said, because companies “still charge various recurring fees and still limit steering.”

This feedback pushed the EC to launch its first two probes under the DMA against Apple and Google.

“We will investigate to what extent these fees and limitations defeat the purpose of the anti-steering provision and by that, limit consumer choice,” Vestager said.

These probes aren’t the end of Apple’s potential app store woes in the EU, either. Breton said that the EC has “many questions on Apple’s new business model” for the app store. These include “questions on the process that Apple used for granting and terminating membership of” its developer program, following a scandal where Epic Games’ account was briefly terminated.

“We also have questions on the fee structure and several other aspects of the business model,” Breton said, vowing to “check if they allow for real opportunities for app developers in line with the letter and the spirit of the DMA.”

Apple, Google, and Meta are failing DMA compliance, EU suspects Read More »

Google search is losing the fight with SEO spam, study says

Google, google search, spam, Tech / Kris Guyer / January 19, 2024

Just wait until more AI sites arrive —

Study finds “search engines seem to lose the cat-and-mouse game that is SEO spam.”

Ron Amadeo – Jan 19, 2024 6: 51 pm UTC

It’s not just you—Google Search is getting worse. A new study from Leipzig University, Bauhaus-University Weimar, and the Center for Scalable Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence looked at Google search quality for a year and found the company is losing the war against SEO (Search Engine Optimization) spam.

The study, first spotted by 404media, “monitored Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo for a year on 7,392 product review queries,” using queries like “best headphones” to study search results. The focus was on product review queries because the researchers felt those searches were “particularly vulnerable to affiliate marketing due to its inherent conflict of interest between users, search providers, and content providers.”

Overall, the study found that “the majority of high-ranking product reviews in the result pages of commercial search engines (SERPs) use affiliate marketing, and significant amounts are outright SEO product review spam.” Search engines occasionally update their ranking algorithms to try to combat spam, but the study found that “search engines seem to lose the cat-and-mouse game that is SEO spam” and that there are “strong correlations between search engine rankings and affiliate marketing, as well as a trend toward simplified, repetitive, and potentially AI-generated content.”

The study found “an inverse relationship between a page’s optimization level and its perceived expertise, indicating that SEO may hurt at least subjective page quality.” Google and its treatment of pages is the primary force behind what does and doesn’t count as SEO, and to say Google’s guidelines reduce subjective page quality is a strike against Google’s entire ranking algorithm.

The bad news is that it doesn’t seem like this will get better any time soon. The study points out generative AI sites one or two times, but that was only in the past year. The elephant in the room is that generative AI is starting to be able to completely automate the processes of SEO spam. Some AI content farms can scan a human-written site, use it for “training data,” rewrite it slightly, and then stave off the actual humans with more aggressive SEO tactics. There are already people bragging about doing AI-powered “SEO heists” on X (formerly Twitter). The New York Times is taking OpenAI to court for copyright infringement, and a class-action suit for book publishers calls ChatGPT and LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) “industrial-strength plagiarists.” Artists are in the same boat from tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. Most websites do not have the legal capacity to take on an infinite wave of automated spam sites enabled by these tools. Google’s policy is to not penalize AI-generated content in its search results.

A Google spokesperson responded to the study by pointing out that Google is still doing better than its competition: “This particular study looked narrowly at product review content, and it doesn’t reflect the overall quality and helpfulness of Search for the billions of queries we see every day. We’ve launched specific improvements to address these issues – and the study itself points out that Google has improved over the past year and is performing better than other search engines. More broadly, numerous third parties have measured search engine results for other types of queries and found Google to be of significantly higher quality than the rest.”

This post was updated at 6: 00PM ET to add a statement from Google.

Google search is losing the fight with SEO spam, study says Read More »