Movement for an Open Web

On the 5th November 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted its final proposed remedies in the US Google AdTech trial under Judge Brinkema. The proposed judgement called for significant sanctions against Google to end its illegal monopoly conduct, restore competition in the AdTech marketplace, punish Google for its ill gotten monopoly gains and to prevent remonopolisation in the future. The key recommendations were for Google to divest its advertising exchange, AdX (DOJ proposal, p. 8-9), and potentially its SSP, DFP (DOJ proposal, p. 10-13), as well as to put in place mechanisms to prevent its from being able to advantage itself in advertising auctions on DFP prior to any divestiture.  However, whilst these remedies seem significant, there are concerns that Google could look to avoid the worst impacts of these remedies by leveraging its acknowledged power in other areas and markets. If the final judgement is to deliver the fairer internet that the court – and the wider AdTech marketplace – are looking for, then it's essential that these loopholes are closed. The 5 routes via which Google could sidestep the remedies are.. 👇

🍁 As the seasons turn we’ve seen some significant developments in the battle against the platforms’ attempts to enclose the open web.  Major updates from Judge Mehta in the US vs Google Search case, from the EC in their investigation into Google’s monopoly in AdTech and in Judge Brinkema’s US AdTech case have set the scene for a busy few months.    🔎 Whilst the search case judgement disappointed pretty much everyone (including, somehow, Google), the EC ‘s decision to fine Google €3bn and push for a breakup of Google’s AdTech businesses show that there is still everything to be fought for.  MOW was the initial complainant in the EC case and its gratifying to have been a key part of what may prove to have been a pivotal process.    🗞️ A new front has also opened up with a battle against the rise of AI Overviews and the damage they are causing to publishers worldwide.  With some publishers experiencing an 80% drop in traffic as AIOs steal both their content and their traffic it's no exaggeration to say that the idea of a free press is under threat.  MOW is part of a coalition that’s fighting for a fair deal for publishers now, not at some distant point in the future. 👇 Read on in our latest newsletter - link in comments below 👇

💥 THE WEEK EVERYTHING CHANGED IN TECH ANTITRUST 💥 It’s been a seismic few days in tech antitrust, with three major announcements that have changed the landscape for the months ahead. For proponents of a fairer and more competitive Internet it’s fair to say that there have been highs and lows, but there is still everything to play for. 👉 First, on the 2nd September, we heard from Judge Mehta, who was presiding over the Google Search case. This was brought by the DoJ and a group of US states claiming that Google was exploiting a monopoly in the search market. The early stages of the case looked promising for Google’s critics (MOW included) – Mehta Found in his August 5th 2025 ruling on liability that Google is an illegal monopolist acting in breach of US law. Google’s monopoly over search was confirmed and the issue that was then left open was the potential remedies. The US government and third parties in industry focused around forcing Google to share its data horde with competitors and a possible divestiture of the Chrome browser. This would address the key components of an antitrust remedy: the “rectification of harm to competition” and “denying the monopolist the fruits of its illegality”. 👇 READ ON IN THE LINK BELOW 👇 #Google #Antitrust #JudgeMehta #DigitalMarkets #DoJ #BigTech #TechAntitrust #EuropeanCommission #Monopoly #AdTech

MOW Response to DOJ Search Case Decision: This judgement is an historic failure that benefits no-one but Google and Apple. The remedies proposed are weak and will only serve to entrench Google’s search monopoly at all levels. The failure to force the divestiture of Chrome is a missed opportunity to deliver real public interest benefits and the proposed technical remedies around data sharing and exclusive agreements are insufficient to create real change. The ruling on exclusive agreements might look powerful but it won’t change a thing. Google will continue to pay Apple, and the telcos, billions for ‘non-exclusive’ placement so that these partners won’t have any incentive to compete. Google was already the gatekeeper for the web and this judgement gold plates that gate and gives them an official gatekeeper’s badge. They have kept control of the assets that their illegal monopoly built. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity to create a new future for the web and its been completely missed. Read the rest of our statement on our website - link below 👇

⚠️ AI Overviews (AIO) are an existential threat to publishers. They steal their content and then, by creating derivative answers from it and presenting these to consumers without the need to click through, they steal the traffic that would otherwise generate the ad revenue that the publisher needs to survive. We’ve heard of 40%+ traffic declines from vulnerable publishers, and that’s before the technology has even been fully rolled out. 🚫 The question, however, is what they need to do about it. In the first instance, the immediate reaction is to block the crawlers that the AI companies use to appropriate their content. This approach is aligned to some regulator’s and publisher’s existing direction but on its own is ineffective.   📩 Movement for an Open Web, recently filed a complaint about this topic to the CMA and the EC along with the Independent Publishers Alliance and the legal organisation, Foxglove. We call for an immediate injunction to protect publishers. 📊 Blocking alone won’t stop the damage. The corpus of information which AI companies use to create their answers already exists and even without input from publishers they will continue to be able to give answers.  This means that, blocked or not, Google and Apple will continue to siphon the traffic that publishers need to survive. By opting out of AI training the publisher loses any chance of getting the small amount of traffic that might arrive from the supplementary links within an AIO. ⚙️ What is needed is a more holistic view of how AIO’s work and how publishers are rewarded.  👉 Go to our website to read more on our view of the future of AI overviews (link in comments below).

The Register has written a piece on MOW’s new complaint to the CMA asking them to investigate the W3C’s statement that ‘third party cookies…must be removed from the web platform.’ MOW believes that it is innappropriate for a supposedly neutral standards setting body to take a position on what is clearly a competition issue. The CMA has recently undertaken a multi-year investigation into the role of 3PCs and it’s clear that their removal would benefit the platforms and harm independent publishers. Our co-founder Timothy Cowen says: “The CMA found that 3PCs are a vital mechanism that supports about 70% of publisher revenue. Google’s proposal to remove 3PCs would impact publishers and promote Google’s position with advertisers. The W3C, announcing that “ 3PCs must be removed”, sides with Google and against publishers. This is disappointing for what should be a neutral standards body.” https://lnkd.in/eTQ8jA6G

A landmark legal challenge to stop Google stealing the work of British journalists has been launched in a case brought by tech justice non-profit Foxglove, the Independent Publishers Alliance, and the Movement for an Open Web (MOW).    In a complaint submitted to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), supported by leading antitrust law firm Preiskel and Co, the organisations warn that Google’s AI Overviews (AIOs) are causing “serious irreparable harm” to the news industry in the UK.    The complaint details how Google is abusing its dominant position in search to take publishers’ content and use it to promote their own AI product – which competes against those same publishers, making it harder for them to reach their readers. Crucially, publishers are given no opportunity to opt out of AIOs without opting out of search altogether. Given Google controls around 90% of search requests, the result of this would be to become effectively invisible online, a devastating blow for a news organisation.    Please go to the MOW website to read the full press release and for contact details for comment. LINK IN COMMENT BELOW 👇

A landmark legal challenge to stop Google stealing the work of British journalists has been launched in a case brought by tech justice non-profit Foxglove, the Independent Publishers Alliance, and the Movement for an Open Web (MOW).    In a complaint submitted to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), supported by leading antitrust law firm Preiskel and Co, the organisations warn that Google’s AI Overviews (AIOs) are causing “serious irreparable harm” to the news industry in the UK.    The complaint details how Google is abusing its dominant position in search to take publishers’ content and use it to promote their own AI product – which competes against those same publishers, making it harder for them to reach their readers. Crucially, publishers are given no opportunity to opt out of AIOs without opting out of search altogether. Given Google controls around 90% of search requests, the result of this would be to become effectively invisible online, a devastating blow for a news organisation.    Please go to the MOW website to read the full press release and for contact details for comment. LINK IN COMMENT BELOW 👇

📩 MOW's June Newsletter is now live. The past month has been another busy time in the fight for the Open Web with developments moving quickly in multiple markets.      In the UK, the CMA has proposed releasing Google from its Sandbox Commitments, a move we believe to be fraught with risk.  We’d encourage anyone with an interest in preserving an open and competitive web to let the CMA know that Google shouldn’t be let off the hook - details on how to do so are in the newsletter.   This month we’ve also taken a look at a new proposal to make cookies smart with ‘data labels’, set out some thoughts on how the sale of Chrome should progress and looked at a new move from the W3C which fundamentally undermines its role as a neutral technical standards body.  Finally, our team spoke with Digiday to look at how the DoJ can most effectively manage its remedies process in the search and AdTech trials.  👇 Link in comments!

"The DOJ faces growing calls to coordinate Google antitrust remedy efforts .. Lobby group Movement for an Open Web has issued fresh calls for the Justice Department to coordinate its proposed remedies to address Google’s monopolies in the ongoing separate search and ad tech cases. The DOJ is developing remedy proposals to counter Google’s market power in search and ad tech, both of which were ruled monopolies during the last 12 months, with MOW now calling for conjoined technical oversight of the two cases. " Read the latest from Digiday where James Rosewell and Tim Cowen of MOW discuss the U.S. Department of Justice's remedies in the Google cases with Ronan Shields. Link in comments 👇 And don't forget if you are in Cannes this week we have an event on tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday 18th June 3 - 4.30pm at Maison NDA/The Dukes Pub) where you can come along and find out more about this! #usdepartmentofjustice #google #googleremedies #googledivestiture #antitrust #techmonopolies (Image is a screenshot of the article title page from Digiday including an illustration of scales by Ivy Liu)