September, 15 2020, 12:00am EDT

In Front of Today's Senate Hearing, More than a Dozen Groups Urge Swift Enforcement Against Google to Put an End to Anti-Competitive Behavior
Groups call for DOJ, state Attorney Generals to file suit against Google on eve of hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights.
WASHINGTON
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing about Google's dominance of the online advertising industry--and more than a dozen groups representing millions of Americans who want to ensure that the Internet isn't dominated by a handful of corporations and remains free and open have called for swift enforcement action to be taken against Google for anti-competitive activity.
The groups have written a letter to the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) applauding the consensus that has reportedly developed between the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General that action must be taken against Google to put an end to its anti-competitive behavior. The groups also called for enforcement action to proceed now, noting that Google's practices have been in the crosshairs of regulators for nearly a decade and that with each passing day the company's dominance becomes more and more deeply entrenched.
According to David Segal, Executive Director of Demand Progress and an organizer of the letter, "There have been claims recently that the Department of Justice's case against Google is somehow rushed or partisan, but nothing could be further from the truth. The federal government has put enormous resources into investigating Google for nearly a decade with bipartisan support, and it is past time for action."
The full text of the letter to NAAG is below.
September 11, 2020
National Association of Attorneys General
1850 M Street NW, 12th floor
Washington, DC 20036
To Whom it May Concern:
We write to you as a broad coalition of organizations representing millions of Americans who want to ensure that the Internet isn't dominated by a handful of corporations and remains free and open.
As you know, recent reports indicate that the Department of Justice and state attorneys general are preparing a historic antitrust case against Google. According to recent reporting by Politico, "Broad consensus exists between the Justice Department and dozens of state attorneys general of both parties on bringing a suit against Google, whose command of both the online search and digital ad markets have brought complaints from a raft of competitors in industries such as advertising, tech and media."
If these reports are accurate, such an action would be the most significant act of antitrust enforcement since U.S. vs Microsoft was filed over twenty years ago. Most antitrust historians agree that such enforcement helps oxygenate markets and spurs healthy competition and that, in turn, this provides consumers with better products and choices in the marketplace while ensuring no single company's power overwhelms markets or democracy. In the specific case of Google, antitrust enforcement can put a stop both to activity that unfairly advantages its own products over its competitors' products through its stranglehold on internet search and its monopoly control over online content and ad distribution.
In recent days, representatives of Google-funded organizations in Washington have disingenuously argued that this case is being rushed. But the reality is far different. Google's practices have been in the crosshairs of regulators for nearly a decade, and enormous resources have gone into government investigations over that same time period. For example, all the way back in 2011-2012, the Federal Trade Commission put significant time, energy, and investigative resources into concerns that Google's business practices were stifling competition in mobile and online search markets.
Supporters of strong antitrust enforcement, in fact, have been criticizing the federal government for moving too slowly for years. For example, more than four years ago, Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed concern about the slow pace of U.S. regulatory response to Google's anti-competitive activities and how that response lagged in comparison to efforts in Europe:
"In 2012, FTC staff concluded that Google was using its dominant search engine to harm rivals of its Google Plus user review feature. Among other things, the staff produced evidence showing that Google promoted its own Google-branded content over its rivals even though those rivals would have otherwise had top billing through its organic search algorithm. The FTC commissioners ultimately sided against the conclusion of their staff, but the European Commission has moved forward with formal charges on similar allegations, and Europeans may soon enjoy better protections than U.S. consumers.
Beneficiaries of Google's funding have likewise expressed a view that the case is politically motivated and tried to tar it as a vendetta against the company by Donald Trump. This also couldn't be further from the truth. Long before Donald Trump came to power, there were bipartisan calls -- often led by state attorneys general -- to put an end to Google's business practices that stifled competition. And this bipartisanship continues today. For example, earlier this summer, the Democratic Chairman of the House Antitrust Subcommittee David Cicilline opened his hearing by focusing on Google CEO Sundar Pichai, despite the fact that Jeff Bezos was testifying before Congress for the first time ever and that public attention on Facebook had rapidly accelerated in the days prior to the hearing. Cicilline said: "As Google became the gateway to the internet it began to abuse its power. It used its surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them. It has dampened innovation and new business growth and it's dramatically increased the price of accessing users on the internet virtually ensuring that any business that wants to be found on the web must pay Google a tax."
We are writing to express to NAAG that we applaud the consensus that has developed between the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General and that action must be taken against Google to put an end to its anti-competitive behavior. We are also writing to express our position that the time for this enforcement action to proceed is now. In fact, it was long before now. As days, weeks, months, and years, continue to pass, more and more companies go out of business as Google's dominance becomes more and more deeply entrenched. This dynamic is exacerbated because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as Big Tech's stranglehold on the market has only intensified over the past six months. And it has particularly strong impact on small businesses owned by people of color, by making it harder for them to be found on the Internet. The idea that justice has proceeded too rapidly on this matter is absurd on its face, as the facts have been apparent and investigations have been ongoing for years.
By moving forward unified enforcement in a robust and quick fashion, the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorneys General will be able to put together the strongest case possible with the most leverage possible. This, in turn, will help ensure that the Internet remains free and open and protects small business and consumers from unfair business practices moving forward.
Sincerely,
Action Center for Race and Economy
American Economic Liberties Project
American Family Voices
Campaign for Accountability
Center for Digital Democracy
Demand Progress Education Fund
Fight for the Future
Institute for Local Self Reliance
Open Markets Institute
Our Revolution
Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Revolving Door Project
Working Families Party
CC: Lauren Willard, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Ryan Shores, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Keep reading...Show less
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Attacks Public Service Workers With 'Blatantly Illegal' Loan Forgiveness Order
"Threatening to punish hardworking Americans for their employers' perceived political views is about as flagrant a violation of the First Amendment as you can imagine," said one critic.
Mar 10, 2025
Criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order intended to limit a program that forgives the federal student loans of borrowers who take public service jobs has grown since he signed it on Friday.
Opponents frame the order as yet another attempt by Trump to quash dissent. The Republican president directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to propose revisions to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program, in coordination with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, to exclude "organizations that engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose."
The order targets employers "aiding or abetting" violations of federal immigration law and the administration's definition of illegal discrimination, engaging in a pattern of violating state law such as disorderly conduct and obstruction of highways, "supporting terrorism," and "child abuse, including the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary states for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents."
Student Defense president Aaron Ament said in a statement that "when PSLF was created by a bipartisan act of Congress and signed into law by [President] George W. Bush, it was a promise from the United States government to its citizens—if you give back to America, America will give back to you."
"In the nearly two decades since, across administrations of both parties, Americans have worked hard and made life decisions under the assumption that the U.S. keeps its word," Ament continued. "Threatening to punish hardworking Americans for their employers' perceived political views is about as flagrant a violation of the First Amendment as you can imagine."
Nadine Chabrier, senior policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, similarly highlighted "serious" First Amendment concerns, saying that "by penalizing individuals seeking loan forgiveness for their associations and the expressive conduct of their employers, new rulemakings could infringe on fundamental rights to speech and association."
"The executive order also undermines the very purpose of PSLF, which Congress established to encourage careers in public service across a broad range of fields," she said. "Stripping PSLF eligibility from nonprofit employees based on the nature of their work will deter skilled professionals from pursuing careers that benefit the public good, weaken critical services for underserved populations and hamper efforts to strengthen vulnerable communities."
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Randi Weingarten explained that "PSLF is based on the idea that borrowers who make 10 years of repayments, and who often forgo higher wages in the private sector, can avoid a lifelong debt sentence."
The teachers union sued the Trump's first-term education secretary, Betsy DeVos, "and rogue loan servicers for their failure to administer the program—and we won," Weingarten noted. "This latest assault on borrowers' livelihoods is a cruel attempt to finish the demolition job that DeVos started. The goal is to sow chaos and confusion—separately, the PSLF application form has already been taken offline, making it effectively inaccessible."
The Economic Policy Institute pointed out Monday that "since the creation of the PSLF program, more than 1 million borrowers have received student loan forgiveness, largely due to fixes made under the Biden administration."
"More than 2 million individuals currently qualify for the PSLF program, according to the Department of Education," the think tank added. "The executive order could potentially narrow which organizations qualify for the program."
Student Borrower Protection Center executive director Mike Pierce blasted the order as "blatantly illegal and an all-out weaponization of debt intended to silence speech that does not align with President Trump's MAGA agenda."
"It is an attack on working families everywhere and will have a chilling effect on our public service workforce doing the work every day to support our local communities," Pierce warned. "Teachers, nurses, service members, and other public service workers deserve better than to be used as pawns in Donald Trump's radical right-wing political project to destroy civil society. This will raise costs for working people while doing nothing to make America safer or healthier."
In addition to scathing critiques, some groups threatened to challenge the order. Weingarten vowed that "the AFT won't stop fighting, in court and in Congress, until every single public service worker gets the help the law affords them."
Ament declared that "if the Trump administration follows through on this threat, they can plan to see us in court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Free Mahmoud Khalil': Progressives Demand Release of 'Disappeared' Columbia Grad
"If the feds can snatch up an American green card holder for speech they don't like and get away with it, they won't stop here. They'll be able to erase the right to speech they don't agree with and kidnap anyone who dares resist."
Mar 10, 2025
Condemning the Trump administration and immigration officials for detaining and imprisoning Mahmoud Khalil over his involvement in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University last year, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a warning for those who believe the arrest is an isolated incident rather than an indication of the president's approach to dissenters.
"If the federal government can disappear a legal U.S. permanent resident without reason or warrant, then they can disappear U.S. citizens too," said the New York Democrat. "Anyone—left, right, or center—who has highlighted the importance of constitutional rights and free speech should be sounding the alarm now."
Khalil, a graduate of Columbia who was a student at the school until December, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Saturday evening as he was returning home to his university-owned apartment with his wife, who is eight months pregnant. He is reportedly being held in Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, over a thousand miles away from home, while the Trump administration works to revoke his green card under the State Department's "catch and revoke" initiative launched last week with the goal of deporting students who are deemed to be "pro-Hamas."
Khalil, who is an Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent, was an organizer of the solidarity encampment that was erected on Columbia's New York City campus last spring to demand the school divest from companies that have supported Israel's bombardment of Gaza.
Jewish-led rights groups including Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow were among those demanding his release on Monday, and a group of Columbia faculty members were preparing to give a press conference alongside Jewish leaders and immigrant rights defenders to speak out against "the unprecedented and unconstitutional arrest of a permanent resident and Columbia graduate student in retaliation for his political activity."
IfNotNow said that ICE had "abducted and disappeared" Khalil and that the attack on his constitutional rights "enables [President Donald] Trump's authoritarian consolidation of power against his political opponents.
The group condemned the Trump administration for "carrying out this authoritarian lurch under the guise of fighting for Jewish safety."
In New York, hundreds of people gathered Monday afternoon in front of the city's ICE office to demand Khalil's release.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, said the arrest and efforts to deport Khalil are "an assault on our First Amendment and freedom of speech."
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also spoke out against Khalil's arrest, noting that after he was taken away, his pregnant wife had "no idea where" he was. She attempted to visit him at a facility in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where she was told he was being held, but he was not there.
"This should terrify everyone," said the Democratic lawmakers. "So pro-'freedom of speech' that Republicans will DETAIN you if you disagree with them."
While Columbia University officials released statements in recent days about "reports of ICE around campus" and said the Ivy League school "has and will continue to follow the law," administrators have not spoken out about Khalil's detention or demanded his release.
Columbia administrators faced condemnation last year for their crackdown on student protests against the United States' support for Israel's assault on Gaza, which had killed tens of thousands of Palestinians when the demonstrations started, with ample evidence that Israel was targeting civilian infrastructure and not just Hamas targets.
Zeteoreported that Khalil reached out to the administration the day before his arrest, asking officials to "provide the necessary protections" and expressing fear over the Trump administration's threats.
Khalil told officials he had been "subjected to a vicious, coordinated, and dehumanizing doxxing campaign led by Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer who, among others, have labeled me a security threat and called for my deportation."
"I haven't been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm," Khalil wrote.
New York City Council member Chi Ossé said that "every Democratic politician and American with a conscience" should speak out against Khalil's detention.
"They're not doing this despite his rights," said Ossé. "They're doing this because of his rights—they're violating the Constitution on purpose, testing the fragile system to see what they can get away with... If the feds can snatch up an American green card holder for speech they don't like and get away with it, they won't stop here. They'll be able to erase the right to speech they don't agree with and kidnap anyone who dares resist."
Ossé called on all those who support civil and constitutional rights to "flood the phones" of members of Congress and demand they push for Khalil's release.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Energy Secretary Makes Clear Trump 'Ready to Sacrifice' Communities and Climate
"As Wright speaks to industry insiders, members of impacted communities, faith leaders, youth, and others are assembling for a 'March for Future Generations,'" one campaigner said of the action at CERAWeek.
Mar 10, 2025
As environmental justice advocates were arrested outside a major energy conference in Houston on Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump's energy secretary faced criticism for his remarks to the government officials and oil and gas executives attending the event.
"Chris Wright, a former fracking CEO who essentially purchased his Cabinet position through $450,000 in Trump campaign contributions, personifies the deadly alliance between the Trump administration and the fossil fuel industry," said Oil Change International U.S. campaign manager Allie Rosenbluth, citing a figure that includes his wife's donations.
Wright's speech at CERAWeek, hosted by S&P Global, Rosenbluth continued, "made clear that he and the rest of the Trump administration are ready to sacrifice our communities and climate for the profits of the fossil fuel industry—which spent $445 million in total to influence Trump and Congress last election cycle."
"We have a human right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and spread our roots in our homes. We cannot do that as long as these poisonous companies... continue to encroach on our communities."
CNBCreported that at the event, Wright vowed to support natural gas production and said that "the Trump administration will end the Biden administration's irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens."
Despite his past comments about the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, Wright rejected claims that he is a climate change denier and said that "the Trump administration will treat climate change for what it is—a global physical phenomenon that is a side effect of building the modern world."
"There is simply no physical way wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas," Wright claimed. He also singled out wind, saying that "it's incredibly high prices, incredibly huge investment, and a large footprint on the local communities, so it's been very unpopular for people that live near offshore wind turbines."
While in Texas, Wright announced a permit extension for Delfin LNG, an offshore liquefied natural gas export terminal proposal near the Louisiana coast—which Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks, called "just a continuation of Chris Wright acting in the interest of Big Oil and Gas."
"Without hesitation he is advancing a project that has a different design, funding, contracts, and operational plans since it was first reviewed over six years ago," she said. "It is clear his only job is to make fossil fuel corporations rich by advancing oil and projects, which will leave families and small businesses to struggle with higher energy bills."
According to the Houston Chronicle, "It's the third Gulf Coast LNG project to receive support since Trump took office."
Rosenbluth similarly slammed the decision, saying that "his performative extension of Delfin LNG's export authorization during his speech represents just how deeply intertwined the Trump administration is with the fossil fuel CEOs at CERAWeek."
"As Wright speaks to industry insiders, members of impacted communities, faith leaders, youth, and others are assembling for a 'March for Future Generations,' where they're demanding an end to new fossil fuel projects and government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry," she noted. "The movement for a just transition away from fossil fuels, and towards a clean energy economy that works for all of us, is continuing to fight—regardless of how many fracking CEOs Trump puts in his Cabinet."
The Chroniclereported that "police arrested eight climate protesters Monday after they linked arms to briefly block a street next to CERAWeek by S&P Global... The activists were among hundreds who marched from nearby Root Memorial Square Park to the conference, which is hosted annually at the Hilton Americas-Houston and the George R. Brown Convention Center."
Climate advocates held a banner at CERAWeek by S&P Global in Houston, Texas on March 10, 2025. (Photo: Luigi W. Morris)
During a press conference at the park, Bekah Hinojosa, co-Founder of South Texas Environmental Justice Network in the Rio Grande Valley, said that "our community has been resisting LNG projects for over 10 years. Those projects are the Rio Grande LNG, Texas LNG, and the Rio Bravo pipeline. Last year, our community proved in court that these LNG facilities would be environmental racism. We are a low-income, brown, Native community, and LNG would be a cancer factory."
Jake Hernandez of Texas Campaign for the Environment declared that "we have a human right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and spread our roots in our homes. We cannot do that as long as these poisonous companies, like Cheniere, continue to encroach on our communities. I've seen a lot of harms and consequences that LNG buildout can cause to our communities. This is just an earnest plea to help us put an end to LNG!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular