Foreign media: A separate promotional deal was signed by Google & Facebook, suspected of unfair price theft

According to international media sources, the special advertisement deal signed between Google and Facebook in 2018 was accused of unfair market discrimination deals in antitrust cases lodged by ten states led by Texas. Further investigation was demanded by senators, but the two firms said the deal is market standard and there is no price coercion.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and others claimed in the new copy of the lawsuit documents released that Google and Facebook have reached a special deal to allow ad servers to be used by Google, which is to distribute advertisement space on the Internet. The universal instrument used at the time. They contend that the activities of Google have harmed competition and have robbed “advertisers, publishers and consumers of the right to enhance quality, increase transparency, increase production and lower prices.”

A Google spokesperson declined to comment on the agreement’s specific terms. She said that this agreement was misinterpreted by state lawsuits just as it misunderstood many other aspects of our ad technology business. In court, we look forward to defending ourselves.

While, in this case, Facebook was not identified as a claimant, it also challenged the arguments of the US government. “Such cooperation is very common in the industry, and we have signed similar agreements with several other companies. Facebook will continue to invest in these partnerships and establish new partnerships, which will help.

To enhance competition in advertising auctions and create the best results for advertisers and publishers. Any claim that such agreements harm competition is groundless.”In the industry, such cooperation is very common, and we have signed similar agreements with several other companies. In these partnerships, Facebook will continue to invest and create new partnerships that will help. Increasing competition in advertising auctions and generating the best results for advertisers and publishers. Any claim that such agreements are harmful to co-publishers

A Utah Republican senator and member of the Senate Antitrust Panel, Mike Lee, said he believes the two firms should testify on the deal under oath. “The Democratic Leader of the Committee and Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also said: “If these charges have not been reviewed by the Justice Department, it must respond promptly.

The most notable is the advertisement distribution process called title bidding in this antitrust case, which will help website publishers circumvent Google’s limits on purchasing and selling online advertising. The exchange will sell the advertisement room to the highest bidder at the moment when the website loads. Title bidding allows publishers to compete for several advertising exchanges directly at the same time, offering more favorable offers to publishers.

The litigation records indicate that the tool was used by around 70 percent of large publishers by 2016. The US government alleged that Google was afraid that major rivals, such as Facebook’s Audience Network Advertisement Service (FAN), could accept headline bidding, thus breaching the benefit hegemony of Google in advertising resources. In 2018, Facebook said the company charged publishers $1.5 billion, which is the last time it offered specifics about those financial spending.

According to the indictment, Google’s head of advertising, Chris LaSala, stated that “it is necessary to repel the survival threats posed by title bidding and FAN” in an internal document outlining 2017 priorities.

Facebook officially sponsored title bidding in March 2017. These states said Google had approached Facebook and, in September 2018, entered a special digital advertisement deal. Facebook revealed in December 2018 that it had joined the ads initiative “open bidding” by Google as an alternative to headline bidding. Google offered preferential care to Facebook in response, enabling Facebook to deliver deals directly to Google’s commonly used apps (ie, ad servers).

Normally, via an advertising auction, bidders need to make an offer and then send the winning bidder to Google’s servers. Facebook will decrease the competition it faces and save cash by bypassing middlemen. Google only charges Facebook a fee of 5 percent to 10 percent per purchase, according to the draft complaint, although the regular fee for Google purchases is around 20 percent, and Facebook is barred from openly debating pricing terms.

A Google spokesperson refused to address questions such as whether the terms given to Facebook were the same as those given to other participants in the auction, and denied auction rigging. She also suggested that at least 25 other organizations were participating in the ‘free auction’ advertisement scheme and that Facebook was also involved in related auctions on competing sites. The presence of Facebook is not limited, as it will not collect data that other customers are unable to access.

Adam Heimlich, chief executive of the Chalice Custom Algorithms advertisement technology firm, said any bidder would be at a disadvantage without this knowledge. He accused Google in a Senate hearing this year of hurting competition.