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.”
“Right now, China is afraid of Google,” Trump said at a Chicago event. If that threat were dismantled, Trump suggested, China could become a greater threat to the US, because the US needs to have “great companies” to compete.
Trump’s comments came about a week after the US Department of Justice proposed remedies in the Google monopoly trial, including mulling a breakup.
“I’m not a fan of Google,” Trump insisted. “They treat me badly. But are you going to destroy the company by doing that? If you do that, are you going to destroy the company? What you can do, without breaking it up, is make sure it’s more fair.”
Now that Trump is presumed to soon be taking office before the remedies phase of the DOJ’s litigation ends next year, it seems possible that Trump may sway the DOJ away from breaking up Google.
Experts told Reuters that a final ruling isn’t expected until August, giving Trump plenty of time to possibly influence the DOJ’s case. But Trump’s stance on Google has seemed to shift throughout his campaign, so there’s no predicting his position once he takes power.
Business Insider noted that Trump was extremely critical of Google on the campaign trail, vowing to “do something” to curtail Google’s power after accusing the search giant of only highlighting negative stories about him in search results. (Google has repeatedly denied the accusation.) On Truth Social as recently as September, Trump vowed to prosecute Google “at the maximum levels,” seemingly less concerned then about how this could influence competition with China.
It would be unusual for Trump to meddle with the DOJ’s ongoing litigation, antitrust expert George Hay told Business Insider, but then again, “Trump is a bit more of a wild card.”
“It’s very rare that, at the presidential level, there’s any attempt to influence the course of cases which have already been filed. Those have a life of their own,” Hay said. “They depend on the judge, the courts, the lawyers who carry on a case. It’s extraordinarily unusual for the administration to become at all active.”
Trump may still feel some ownership over the DOJ’s investigation into Google’s core business since it began in 2019 under his administration, and tensions between Trump and Google have not diminished much since. The Verge noted that Trump warned Google to “be careful” in August because he “had a feeling Google is going to be close to shut down.” And earlier this year, Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, called for Google’s breakup on X (formerly Twitter), proclaiming that a stop to Google’s “monopolistic control of information” was “long overdue.”
Trump’s on-and-off feud with Google
For Trump, disabling Google’s search monopoly might feel personal, as he has spent years accusing Google of manipulating results to disfavor him.
His feud with Google appear to have begun in 2016 when Trump falsely accused Google of manipulating votes, claiming Google wanted to make it appear that he didn’t have a “big victory” over Hillary Clinton, CNN reported.
The feud continued through the 2020 election, Politico reported, with Trump warning Google that his administration was “watching Google very closely” after a former Google employee went on Fox News to claim that Google search results were biased against Trump. Google disputed the employee’s report.
And yet throughout this feud, there have also been times where Trump seems to warm to Google. During his last administration, he backtracked a threat to investigate Google’s alleged work with China’s military, Politico noted, after meeting with Google CEO Sundar Pichai. Most recently, he claimed Pichai reached out to praise Trump’s ability to trend on the search engine during Trump’s McDonald’s campaign stunt, SF Gate reported.
So far, Google is not commenting on Trump’s comments on the DOJ’s proposed breakup of its search business. But Pichai did send an internal memo to Google staff on the night before the election, The Verge reported, praising them for boosting accurate information during the US election and reminding them that “the outcome will be a major topic of conversation in living rooms and other places around the world.”
At a time when Trump might continue heavily criticizing Google from the Oval Office, Pichai told Googlers that maintaining trust in Google is a top priority.
“Whomever the voters entrust, let’s remember the role we play at work, through the products we build and as a business: to be a trusted source of information to people of every background and belief,” Pichai’s memo said. “We will and must maintain that.”
The DOJ may not even want to seek a breakup
When the DOJ finally proposed a framework for remedies last month, they emphasized that there’s still so much more to consider before landing on final remedies and that the DOJ reserves “the right to add or remove potential proposed remedies.”
That means that while the DOJ has said that requiring a divestment of Chrome or Android isn’t completely off the table, they currently aren’t committed to following through on ordering a breakup.
Through the remedies phase of litigation, the DOJ expects that discovery will reveal more about whether requiring a breakup is needed or if other remedies might resolve antitrust concerns while preserving Google’s search empire.
One reason it might be necessary to spin off Chrome or Android, however, would be to “prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features—including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence—over rivals or new entrants,” the DOJ said.
Google has warned that a breakup could hurt small businesses that depend on open source code Google develops for Android and Chrome. Costs of Android devices could also rise, Google warned.
Adam Epstein—the president and co-CEO of adMarketplace, which bills itself as “the largest consumer search technology company outside of Google and Bing”—told Ars last September that spinning out Android and Chrome may inflict “maximum pain” on Google. But it could also “cause pain to users and publishers and might not be the best way to create competition in search results and advertising.”
Buried in a story from The New York Times is perhaps the biggest clue that Trump may again be warming to Google as he likely heads back to Washington. The Times noted that at the Chicago event, Trump seemed to be echoing a Google talking point.
Google has argued that “a breakup could hurt America’s interests in a heated geopolitical competition with China over dominance in areas like artificial intelligence,” The Times reported. And Trump appeared to be running with that same logic when seemingly shifting his position on wanting to destroy Google in his final days on the campaign trail.
“It’s a very dangerous thing, because we want to have great companies,” Trump said. “We don’t want China to have these companies.”
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 called the DOJ extending search remedies to AI “radical,” an “overreach.”
The US Department of Justice finally proposed sweeping remedies to destroy Google’s search monopoly late yesterday, and, predictably, Google is not loving any of it.
On top of predictable asks—like potentially requiring Google to share search data with rivals, restricting distribution agreements with browsers like Firefox and device makers like Apple, and breaking off Chrome or Android—the DOJ proposed remedies to keep Google from blocking competition in “the evolving search industry.” And those extra steps threaten Google’s stake in the nascent AI search world.
This is only the first step in the remedies stage of litigation, but Google is already showing resistance to both expected and unexpected remedies that the DOJ proposed. In a blog from Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company accused the DOJ of “overreach,” suggesting that proposed remedies are “radical” and “go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”
From here, discovery will proceed as the DOJ makes a case to broaden the scope of proposed remedies and Google raises its defense to keep remedies as narrowly tailored as possible. After that phase concludes, the DOJ will propose its final judgement on remedies in November, which must be fully revised by March 2025 for the court to then order remedies.
Even then, however, the trial is unlikely to conclude, as Google plans to appeal. In August, Mozilla’s spokesperson told Ars that the trial could drag on for years before any remedies are put in place.
In the meantime, Google plans to continue focusing on building out its search empire, Google’s president of global affairs, Kent Walker, said in August. This presumably includes innovations in AI search that the DOJ fears may further entrench Google’s dominant position.
Scrutiny of Google’s every move in the AI industry will likely only be heightened in that period. As Google has already begun seeking exclusive AI deals with companies like Apple, it risks appearing to engage in the same kinds of anti-competitive behavior in AI markets as the court has already condemned. And giving that impression could not only impact remedies ordered by the court, but also potentially weaken Google’s chances of winning on appeal, Lee Hepner, an antitrust attorney monitoring the trial for the American Economic Liberties Project, told Ars.
Ending Google’s monopoly starts with default deals
In the DOJ’s proposed remedy framework, the DOJ says that there’s still so much more to consider before landing on final remedies that it reserves “the right to add or remove potential proposed remedies.”
Through discovery, DOJ said that it plans to continue engaging experts and stakeholders “to learn not just about the relevant markets themselves but also about adjacent markets as well as remedies from other jurisdictions that could affect or inform the optimal remedies in this action.
“To be effective, these remedies… must include some degree of flexibility because market developments are not always easy to predict and the mechanisms and incentives for circumvention are endless,” the DOJ said.
Ultimately, the DOJ said that any remedies sought should be “mutually reinforcing” and work to “unfetter” Google’s current monopoly in general search services and general text advertising markets. That effort would include removing barriers to competition—like distribution and revenue-sharing agreements—as well as denying Google monopoly profits and preventing Google from monopolizing “related markets in the future,” the DOJ said.
Any effort to undo Google’s monopoly starts with ending Google’s control over “the most popular distribution channels,” the DOJ said. At one point during the trial, for example, a witness accidentally blurted out that Apple gets a 36 percent cut from its Safari deal with Google. Lucrative default deals like that leave rivals with “little-to-no incentive to compete for users,” the DOJ said.
“Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow,” the DOJ warned.
To dislodge this key peg propping up Google’s search monopoly, some options include ending Google’s default deals altogether, which would “limit or prohibit default agreements, preinstallation agreements, and other revenue-sharing arrangements related to search and search-related products, potentially with or without the use of a choice screen.”
A breakup could be necessary
Behavior and structural remedies may also be needed, the DOJ proposed, to “prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features—including emerging search access points and features, such as artificial intelligence—over rivals or new entrants.” That could mean spinning off the Chrome browser or restricting Google from preinstalling its search engine as the default in Chrome or on Android devices.
In her blog, Mulholland conceded that “this case is about a set of search distribution contracts” but claimed that “overbroad restrictions on distribution contracts” would create friction for Google users and “reduce revenue for companies like Mozilla” as well as Android smart phone makers.
Asked to comment on supposedly feared revenue losses, a Mozilla spokesperson told Ars, “[We are] closely monitoring the legal process and considering its potential impact on Mozilla and how we can positively influence the next steps. Mozilla has always championed competition and choice online, particularly in search. Firefox continues to offer a range of search options, and we remain committed to serving our users’ preferences while fostering a competitive market.”
Mulholland also warned that “splitting off” Chrome or Android from Google’s search business “would break them” and potentially “raise the cost of devices,” because “few companies would have the ability or incentive to keep them open source, or to invest in them at the same level we do.”
“We’ve invested billions of dollars in Chrome and Android,” Mulholland wrote. “Chrome is a secure, fast, and free browser and its open-source code provides the backbone for numerous competing browsers. Android is a secure, innovative, and free open-source operating system that has enabled vast choice in the smartphone market, helping to keep the cost of phones low for billions of people.”
Google has long argued that its investment in open source Chrome and Android projects benefits developers whose businesses and customers would be harmed if those efforts lost critical funding.
“Features like Chrome’s Safe Browsing, Android’s security features, and Play Protect benefit from information and signals from a range of Google products and our threat-detection expertise,” Mulholland wrote. “Severing Chrome and Android would jeopardize security and make patching security bugs harder.”
Hepner told Ars that Android could potentially thrive if broken off from Google, suggesting that through discovery, it will become clearer what would happen if either Google product was severed from the company.
“I think others would agree that Android is a company that is capable [being] a standalone entity,” Hepner said. “It could be independently monetized through relationships with device manufacturers, web browsers, alternative Play Stores that are not under Google’s umbrella. And that if that were the case, what you would see is that Android and the operating system marketplace begins to evolve to meet the needs and demands of innovative products that are not being created just by Google. And you’ll see that dictating the evolution of the marketplace and fundamentally the flow of information across our society.”
Mulholland also claimed that sharing search data with rivals risked exposing users to privacy and security risks, but the DOJ vowed to be “mindful of potential user privacy concerns in the context of data sharing” while distinguishing “genuine privacy concerns” from “pretextual arguments” potentially misleading the court regarding alleged risks.
One possible way around privacy concerns, the DOJ suggested, would be prohibiting Google from collecting the kind of sensitive data that cannot be shared with rivals.
Finally, to stop Google from charging supra-competitive prices for ads, the DOJ is “evaluating remedies” like licensing or syndicating Google’s ad feed “independent of its search results.” Further, the DOJ may require more transparency, forcing Google to provide detailed “search query reports” featuring currently obscured “information related to its search text ads auction and ad monetization.”
Stakeholders were divided on whether the DOJ’s initial framework is appropriate.
Matt Schruers, the CEO of a trade association called the Computer & Communications Industry Association (which represents Big Tech companies like Google), criticized the DOJ’s “hodgepodge of structural and behavioral remedies” as going “far beyond” what’s needed to address harms.
“Any remedy should be narrowly tailored to address specific conduct, which in this case was a set of search distribution contracts,” Schruers said. “Instead, the proposed DOJ remedies would reshape numerous industries and products, which would harm consumers and innovation in these dynamic markets.”
But a senior vice president of public affairs for Google search rival DuckDuckGo, Kamyl Bazbaz, praised the DOJ’s framework as being “anchored to the court’s ruling” and appropriately broad.
“This proposal smartly takes aim at breaking Google’s illegal hold on the general search market now and ushers in a new era of enduring competition moving forward,” Bazbaz said. “The framework understands that no single remedy can undo Google’s illegal monopoly, it will require a range of behavioral and structural remedies to free the market.”
Bazbaz expects that “Google is going to use every resource at its disposal to discredit this proposal,” suggesting that “should be taken as a sign this framework can create real competition.”
AI deals could weaken Google’s appeal, expert says
Google appears particularly disturbed by the DOJ’s insistence that remedies must be forward-looking and prevent Google from leveraging its existing monopoly power “to feed artificial intelligence features.”
As Google sees it, the DOJ’s attempt to attack Google’s AI business “comes at a time when competition in how people find information is blooming, with all sorts of new entrants emerging and new technologies like AI transforming the industry.”
But the DOJ has warned that Google’s search monopoly potentially feeding AI features “is an emerging barrier to competition and risks further entrenching Google’s dominance.”
The DOJ has apparently been weighing some of the biggest complaints about Google’s AI training when mulling remedies. That includes listening to frustrated site owners who can’t afford to block Google from scraping data for AI training because the same exact crawler indexes their content in Google search results. Those site owners have “little choice” but to allow AI training or else sacrifice traffic from Google search, The Seattle Times reported.
Remedy options may come with consequences
Remedies in the search trial might change that. In their proposal, the DOJ said it’s considering remedies that would “prohibit Google from using contracts or other practices to undermine rivals’ access to web content and level the playing field by requiring Google to allow websites crawled for Google search to opt out of training or appearing in any Google-owned artificial-intelligence product or feature on Google search,” such as Google’s controversial AI summaries.
Hepner told Ars that “it’s not surprising at all” that remedies cover both search and AI because “at the core of Google’s monopoly power is its enormous scale and access to data.”
“The Justice Department is clearly thinking creatively,” Hepner said, noting that “the ability for content creators to opt out of having their material and work product used to train Google’s AI systems is an interesting approach to depriving Google of its immense scale.”
The DOJ is also eyeing controls on Google’s use of scale to power AI advertising technologies like Performance Max to end Google’s supracompetitive pricing on text ads for good.
It’s critical to think about the future, the DOJ argued in its framework, because “Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets”—not just in the markets where Google holds monopoly powers.
Google disagrees with this alleged “government overreach.”
“Hampering Google’s AI tools risks holding back American innovation at a critical moment,” Mulholland warned, claiming that AI is still new and “competition globally is fierce.”
“There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry—skewing investment, distorting incentives, hobbling emerging business models—all at precisely the moment that we need to encourage investment, new business models, and American technological leadership,” Mulholland wrote.
Hepner told Ars that he thinks that the DOJ’s proposed remedies framework actually “meets the moment and matches the imperative to deprive Google of its monopoly hold on the search market, on search advertising, and potentially on future related markets.”
To ensure compliance with any remedies pursued, the DOJ also recommended “protections against circumvention and retaliation, including through novel paths to preserving dominance in the monopolized markets.”
That means Google might be required to “finance and report to a Court-appointed technical committee” charged with monitoring any Google missteps. The company may also have to agree to retain more records for longer—including chat messages that the company has been heavily criticized for deleting. And through this compliance monitoring, Google may also be prohibited from owning a large stake in any rivals.
If Google were ever found willfully non-compliant, the DOJ is considering a “range of provisions,” including risking more extreme structural or behavioral remedies or enduring extensions of compliance periods.
As the remedies stage continues through the spring, followed by Google’s prompt appeal, Hepner suggested that the DOJ could fight to start imposing remedies before the appeal concludes. Likely Google would just as strongly fight for any remedies to be delayed.
While the trial drags on, Hepner noted that Google already appears to be trying to strike another default deal with Apple that appears pretty similar to the controversial distribution deals at the heart of the search monopoly trial. In March, Apple started mulling using Google’s Gemini to exclusively power new AI features for the iPhone.
“This is basically the exact same anticompetitive behavior that they were found liable for,” Hepner told Ars, suggesting this could “weaken” Apple’s defense both against the DOJ’s broad framework of proposed remedies and during the appeal.
“If Google is actually engaging in the same anti-competitive conduct and artificial intelligence markets that they were found liable for in the search market, the court’s not going to look kindly on that relative to an appeal,” Hepner said.
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.
eBay has defeated a lawsuit that the US Department of Justice raised last fall, which alleged that eBay violated environmental protection and public safety laws by allowing users to sell hundreds of thousands of banned products.
Among products targeted by the DOJ suit were at least 343,011 “aftermarket products for motor vehicles” used to “tamper with or disable vehicle emissions control systems” and at least 23,000 “unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticides.” The DOJ also took issue with sales of products containing methylene chloride, which is used as a “thinning agent in paint and coating removal products.” Most uses of that chemical were banned by the Environmental Protection Agency this April to prevent causing cancer, liver harm, and death.
In her order, US District Judge Orelia Merchant agreed with eBay that the DOJ failed to prove that eBay was liable for selling some of these targeted products. Ultimately, Merchant ruled that whether the products violated environmental laws or not, Section 230 barred all of the DOJ’s claims, as eBay is shielded from liability for third-party postings (in this case, listings) on its platform.
“eBay contends that it does not actually ‘sell’ any item listed on its platform,” Merchant wrote, pointing to a precedent set in a 2004 lawsuit where the jewelry company Tiffany attempted to sue eBay over counterfeit items. Merchant agreed with the Second Circuit, which affirmed that “eBay did not itself sell counterfeit Tiffany goods; only the fraudulent vendors did,” mainly due to the fact that eBay “never physically possesses” the goods that are sold on its platform. For the same reason, Merchant found that eBay never sold any of the restricted items the DOJ flagged last year.
While the entire motion to dismiss was granted, the DOJ did succeed in arguing that eBay had violated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Methylene Chloride Rule by not removing some listings for products containing methylene chloride.
Under those laws, the DOJ persuasively alleged that eBay was a “retailer” who introduced and “distributed in commerce” products containing methylene chloride, Merchant’s order noted.
eBay’s attempt to defend against that claim by narrowly arguing that the TSCA should only be applied to the literal first seller to introduce a product to market not only failed, Merchant said, but also threatened to “undermine the TSCA’s regulatory scope” as a law designed to protect the public from any introduction of harmful substances.
However, none of that matters, eBay argued, because Section 230 bars that claim, too. Merchant agreed that without “allegations… eBay fails to remove third-party listings (conduct that is plainly immune under Section 230),” and the government’s complaint “would not state a claim.”
eBay vows to help prevent toxic sales
Perhaps the government had hoped that eBay might settle the lawsuit, as the company did last February in a DOJ case over the sales of pill presses. Similar to the DOJ’s bid to hold eBay liable for enabling product sales causing environmental harms, the DOJ had accused eBay of selling pill presses tied to fentanyl drug rings amid an opioid epidemic killing 100,000 people annually at its peak. Both suits were designed to stop eBay from distributing products causing harms, but only one succeeded.
In the pill press case, eBay did not invoke the Section 230 shield. Instead, eBay admitted no wrongdoing while agreeing to “pay $59 million” and voluntarily removing products targeted by the DOJ. In a statement, eBay said this was “in the best interest of the company and its shareholders as it avoids the costs, uncertainty, and distraction associated with protracted litigation.”
eBay did not appear concerned that the environmental lawsuit might have similarly long legs in court. An eBay spokesperson told Ars that the company appreciated the court’s “thoughtful review,” which “found that the government’s lawsuit should not be permitted to move forward.”
“Maintaining a safe and trusted marketplace for our global community of sellers and buyers is a fundamental principle of our business at eBay,” eBay’s spokesperson said. “As we have throughout our history, eBay will continue to invest significant resources to support its well-recognized and proactive efforts to help prevent prohibited items from being listed on our marketplace.”
Because Merchant granted eBay’s motion to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit over alleged environmental harms with prejudice, the DOJ will not have a chance to re-file the case in the same court but could possibly appeal to a higher court.
As the US Department of Justice aims to break up Google’s alleged ad tech monopoly, experts say that remedies sought in the antitrust trial could potentially benefit not just advertisers and publishers but also everyone targeted by ads online.
So far, the DOJ has argued that through acquisitions, Google allegedly monopolizes the ad server market, taking a substantial cut of every online ad sale by tying together products on the buyer and seller sides. Locking publishers into using its seller-side platform to access its large advertiser demand, Google also allegedly shut out rivals by pushing advertisers into a corner, then making it hard for publishers to switch platforms.
This scheme also allegedly set Google up to charge higher “monopoly” fees, the DOJ argued, allegedly putting some publishers out of business and raising costs for advertisers.
But while the harms to publishers and advertisers have been outlined at length, there’s been less talk about the seemingly major consequences for consumers perhaps harmed by the alleged monopoly. Those harms include higher costs of goods, less privacy, and increasingly lower-quality ads that frequently bombard their screens with products nobody wants.
By overcharging by as much as 5 or 10 percent for online ads, Google allegedly placed a “Google tax” on the price of “everyday goods we buy,” Tech Oversight’s Sacha Haworth explained during a press briefing Thursday, where experts closely monitoring the trial shared insights.
“When it comes to lowering costs on families,” Haworth said, “Google has overcharged advertisers and publishers by nearly $2 billion. That’s just over the last four years. That has inflated the price of ads, it’s increased the cost of doing business, and, of course, these costs get passed down to us when we buy things online.”
But while it’s unclear if destroying Google’s alleged monopoly would pass on any savings to consumers, Elise Phillips, policy counsel focused on competition and privacy for Public Knowledge, outlined other benefits in the event of a DOJ win.
She suggested that Google’s conduct has diminished innovation, which has “negatively” affected “the quality diversity and even relevancy of the advertisements that consumers tend to see.”
Were Google’s ad tech to be broken up and behavioral remedies sought, more competition might mean that consumers have more control over how their personal data is used in targeted advertising, Phillips suggested, and ultimately, lead to a future where everyone gets fed higher-quality ads.
That could happen if, instead of Google’s ad model dominating the Internet, less invasive ad targeting models could become more widely adopted, experts suggested. That could enhance privacy and make online ads less terrible after The New York Times declared a “junk ad epidemic” last year.
The thinking goes that if small businesses and publishers benefited from potentially reduced costs, increased revenues, and more options, consumers might start seeing a wider, higher-quality range of ads online, experts suggested.
Better ad models “are already out there,” Open Markets Institute policy analyst Karina Montoya said, such as “conceptual advertising” that uses signals that, unlike Google’s targeting, don’t rely on “gigantic, massive data sets that collect every single thing that we do in all of our devices and that don’t ask for our consent.”
But any emerging ad models are seemingly “crushed and flattened by this current dominant business model that’s really arising” from Google’s tight grip on the ad tech markets that the DOJ is targeting, Montoya said. Those include markets “for publisher ad servers, advertiser ad networks, and the ad exchanges that connect the two,” Reuters reported.
At the furthest extreme, loosening Google’s grip on the online ad industry could even “revolutionize the Internet,” Haworth suggested.
One theory posits that if publishers’ revenues increased, consumers would also benefit from more information potentially becoming available on the open web—as less content potentially gets stuck behind paywalls as desperate publishers seek ways to make up for lost ad revenue.
Montoya—who also is a reporter for the Center for Journalism & Liberty, which monitors how media outlets can thrive in today’s digital economy—noted that publishers depending on reader funding through subscriptions or donations is not sustainable if society wants to “have an open in free market where everybody can access information that they deserve and have a right to access.” By reducing Google’s control, the DOJ argues that publishers would be more financially stable, and Montoya hopes the public is starting to understand how that could benefit the open web.
“The trial is really allowing the public to see a full display of Google’s pattern of retaliatory behavior, really just to protect its monopoly power,” Montoya sad. “This idea that innovation and ways to monetize journalistic content has to come only from Google is wrong and this is really their defense.”
The US Department of Justice has started cracking down on the use of AI image generators to produce child sexual abuse materials (CSAM).
On Monday, the DOJ arrested Steven Anderegg, a 42-year-old “extremely technologically savvy” Wisconsin man who allegedly used Stable Diffusion to create “thousands of realistic images of prepubescent minors,” which were then distributed on Instagram and Telegram.
The cops were tipped off to Anderegg’s alleged activities after Instagram flagged direct messages that were sent on Anderegg’s Instagram account to a 15-year-old boy. Instagram reported the messages to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which subsequently alerted law enforcement.
During the Instagram exchange, the DOJ found that Anderegg sent sexually explicit AI images of minors soon after the teen made his age known, alleging that “the only reasonable explanation for sending these images was to sexually entice the child.”
According to the DOJ’s indictment, Anderegg is a software engineer with “professional experience working with AI.” Because of his “special skill” in generative AI (GenAI), he was allegedly able to generate the CSAM using a version of Stable Diffusion, “along with a graphical user interface and special add-ons created by other Stable Diffusion users that specialized in producing genitalia.”
After Instagram reported Anderegg’s messages to the minor, cops seized Anderegg’s laptop and found “over 13,000 GenAI images, with hundreds—if not thousands—of these images depicting nude or semi-clothed prepubescent minors lasciviously displaying or touching their genitals” or “engaging in sexual intercourse with men.”
In his messages to the teen, Anderegg seemingly “boasted” about his skill in generating CSAM, the indictment said. The DOJ alleged that evidence from his laptop showed that Anderegg “used extremely specific and explicit prompts to create these images,” including “specific ‘negative’ prompts—that is, prompts that direct the GenAI model on what not to include in generated content—to avoid creating images that depict adults.” These go-to prompts were stored on his computer, the DOJ alleged.
Anderegg is currently in federal custody and has been charged with production, distribution, and possession of AI-generated CSAM, as well as “transferring obscene material to a minor under the age of 16,” the indictment said.
Because the DOJ suspected that Anderegg intended to use the AI-generated CSAM to groom a minor, the DOJ is arguing that there are “no conditions of release” that could prevent him from posing a “significant danger” to his community while the court mulls his case. The DOJ warned the court that it’s highly likely that any future contact with minors could go unnoticed, as Anderegg is seemingly tech-savvy enough to hide any future attempts to send minors AI-generated CSAM.
“He studied computer science and has decades of experience in software engineering,” the indictment said. “While computer monitoring may address the danger posed by less sophisticated offenders, the defendant’s background provides ample reason to conclude that he could sidestep such restrictions if he decided to. And if he did, any reoffending conduct would likely go undetected.”
If convicted of all four counts, he could face “a total statutory maximum penalty of 70 years in prison and a mandatory minimum of five years in prison,” the DOJ said. Partly because of “special skill in GenAI,” the DOJ—which described its evidence against Anderegg as “strong”—suggested that they may recommend a sentencing range “as high as life imprisonment.”
Announcing Anderegg’s arrest, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco made it clear that creating AI-generated CSAM is illegal in the US.
“Technology may change, but our commitment to protecting children will not,” Monaco said. “The Justice Department will aggressively pursue those who produce and distribute child sexual abuse material—or CSAM—no matter how that material was created. Put simply, CSAM generated by AI is still CSAM, and we will hold accountable those who exploit AI to create obscene, abusive, and increasingly photorealistic images of children.”
