Support Common Dreams Today
Journalism that is independent, non-profit, ad-free, and 100% reader-supported.
#
For Immediate Release
September, 15 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Email:,press@demandprogress.org
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
New Research Details Promise of Converting From 'War Economy to a Green Economy'
"Military industrial production can be redirected to civilian technologies that contribute to societal well-being and provide green jobs," says the Costs of War project.
Jan 26, 2023
A pair of reports published Thursday show that many workers employed in the U.S. military-industrial complex support shifting manufacturing resources from military to civilian use—a conversion seen as vital to the fight against the climate emergency.
Moving "from a war economy to a green economy" can help avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis, noted the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute, publisher of the new research.
"Ever-higher military spending is contributing to climate catastrophe, and U.S. lawmakers need a better understanding of alternative economic choices," Stephanie Savell, co-director of Costs of War, said in a statement. "Military industrial production can be redirected to civilian technologies that contribute to societal well-being and provide green jobs. This conversion can both decarbonize the economy and create prosperity in districts across the nation."
In one of the papers released Thursday, Miriam Pemberton, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, described "how the United States developed a war economy," as reflected in its massive $858 billion military budget, which accounts for roughly half of all federal discretionary spending.
As Pemberton explained:
When the U.S. military budget decreased after the Cold War, military contractors initiated a strategy to protect their profits by more widely connecting jobs to military spending. They did this by spreading their subcontracting chains across the United States and creating an entrenched war economy. Perhaps the most infamous example: Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jet, which is built in 45 states.
The strategy proved successful. Today, many members of Congress have political incentives to continue to raise the military budget, in order to protect jobs in their districts. Much of the U.S. industrial base is invested in and focused on weapons production, and industry lobbyists won't let Congress forget it.
Not only is the Pentagon a major contributor to planet-heating pollution—emitting more greenhouse gases than 140 countries—and other forms of environmental destruction, but a 2019 Costs of War study showed that "dollar for dollar, military spending creates far fewer jobs than spending on other sectors like education, healthcare, and mass transit," Pemberton continued.
Moreover, "military spending creates jobs that bring wealth to some people and businesses, but do not alleviate poverty or result in widely-shared prosperity," Pemberton wrote. "In fact, of the 20 states with economies most dependent on military manufacturing, 14 experience poverty at similar or higher rates than the national average."
"A different way is possible," she stressed, pointing to a pair of military conversion case studies.
"The only way to really lower emissions of the military is you've got to make the military smaller."
As military budgets were shrinking in 1993, Lockheed was eager to expand its reach into non-military production.
"One of its teams working on fighter jets at a manufacturing facility in Binghamton, New York successfully shifted its specialized skills to produce a system for transit buses that cut fuel consumption, carbon emissions, maintenance costs, and noise, called 'HybriDrive,'" Pemberton explained.
By 1999, Lockheed "sold the facility producing HybriDrive buses and largely abandoned its efforts to convert away from dependence on military spending," she wrote. "But under the new management of BAE Systems, the hybrid buses and their new zero-emission models are now reducing emissions" in cities around the world.
According to Pemberton, "This conversion project succeeded where others have failed largely because its engineers took seriously the differences between military and civilian manufacturing and business practices, and adapted their production accordingly."
In another paper released Thursday, Karen Bell, a senior lecturer in sustainable development at the University of Glasgow, sought to foreground "the views of defense sector workers themselves," noting that they "have been largely absent, despite their importance for understanding the feasibility of conversion."
Bell surveyed 58 people currently and formerly employed in military-related jobs in the U.S. and the United Kingdom and found that "while some workers said that the defense sector is 'socially useful,' many were frustrated with their field and would welcome working in the green economy."
"This was a small group so we cannot generalize to defense workers overall," writes Bell. "However, even among this small cohort, some were interested in converting their work to civil production and would be interested in taking up 'green jobs.'"
One respondent told Bell: "Just greenwashing isn't going to do it. Just putting solar panels up isn't going to do it. So we're trying to stress that the only way to really lower emissions of the military is you've got to make the military smaller."
"By the way, do we really need to update all our ICBMs [Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles]?" the survey participant asked. "Don't we have enough to blow up the world three times over, or five times over? Why don't we take those resources and use them someplace else where they really should be?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fired Memphis Cops Charged With Second-Degree Murder for Killing Tyre Nichols
"The video must be that bad," said law professor Sherrilyn Ifill. "But fired does not prevent rehiring elsewhere, and charged does not mean convicted. But more important than all, none of this brings back Tyre Nichols."
Jan 26, 2023
Five Memphis, Tennessee police officers who were fired for what their chief called a "heinous, reckless, and inhumane" attack on a Black motorist who died three days after a traffic stop were booked and charged Thursday with crimes including second-degree murder.
Former Memphis Police Department (MPD) officers Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, Justin Smith, Emmitt Martin III, and Desmond Mills Jr—who are all Black—were charged with crimes including second-degree murder, aggravated assault-acting in concert, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct, and official oppression, according to court records.
Speaking at a Thursday news conference announcing the charges, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Director David B. Rausch described the five officers' actions as "absolutely appalling."
"We are here to pursue truth and justice, realizing that we should not be here," said Rausch. "Simply put, this should not have happened. I'm sickened by what I saw."
On Wednesday night, Memphis Police Chief C.J. Davis lamented the "horrific circumstances" of Nichols' death. Calling the victim's arrest a "failing of basic humanity," Davis vowed her department would "find truth in the tragic loss."
\u201cBREAKING: The 5 former Memphis Police Department officers have been indicted by a grand jury on charges ranging from second-degree murder, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, official misconduct and official oppression for the death of Tyre Nichols.\u201d— Ben Crump (@Ben Crump) 1674759063
Nichols died on January 10 from cardiac arrest and kidney failure three days after Memphis officers pulled his vehicle over at around 8:30 pm on January 7. MPD claimed there were two "confrontations" between officers and Nichols, who allegedly ran away before being violently arrested. Complaining of shortness of breath, Nichols was rushed to St. Francis Hospital in critical condition.
All five officers were fired on January 20 after they "were found to be directly responsible for the physical abuse of Mr. Nichols," Davis explained. Two firefighters were also terminated in connection with the attack.
Earlier this month, U.S. Attorney Kevin Ritz—working with the FBI's Memphis Field Office and the U.S. Justice Department—launched a civil rights investigation into the case.
According to the Memphis Commercial Appeal, some of the officers involved belonged to an MPD unit called SCORPION, which stands for Street Crimes Operation to Restore Peace in Our Neighborhoods.
In 2016, a federal civil rights complaint was filed against Haley, alleging that he and other officers strip-searched an inmate at a penal farm and beat him until he blacked out, WHBQreported.
\u201cFired & charged w/murder. The video must be that bad. But fired does not prevent rehiring elsewhere, & charged does not mean convicted. But more important than all, none of this brings back Tyre Nichols. We need the abuse & murder by ofcrs to stop. And that requires a new way.\u201d— Sherrilyn Ifill (@Sherrilyn Ifill) 1674766025
Antonio Romanucci, an attorney representing Nichols' family, said Monday after viewing police bodycam footage of the attack on the 29-year-old father: "He was a human piñata for those police officers. It was unadulterated, unabashed, nonstop beating of this young boy for three minutes."
Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump, who is also representing Nichols' relatives, compared the footage to the 1991 beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles Police Department officers.
"What we saw, regrettably, reminded us of the Rodney King video," Crump said Monday. "But, unlike Rodney King, Tyre didn't survive."'
The Shelby County District Attorney's Office said earlier this week that it will likely release footage of the incident at 6:00 pm local time Friday.
\u201cThe family of Tyre Nichols is demanding that Memphis police release their bodycam footage of the stop that landed him in the hospital in critical condition. \nTyre died from the injuries that he received at the hands of police during a traffic stop.\u201d— \ud83e\udd40_Imposter_\ud83d\udd78\ufe0f (@\ud83e\udd40_Imposter_\ud83d\udd78\ufe0f) 1673936022
"Yet again, we're seeing evidence of what happens to Black and Brown people from simple traffic stops," Crump contended. "You should not be killed because of a simple traffic stop."
"And we have to say to America: How you would treat our white brothers and sisters when you have a traffic stop with them, well, treat us Black and Brown citizens the same way," he added.
On Monday, Nichols' mother, RowVaughn Wells, called her son a "gentle soul."
"Tyre was a beautiful person. He loved to skateboard. He loved to take pictures. He liked to go see the sunset. And most of all, he loved his mother and he loved his son," she said.
Speaking of the fired officers, Wells added: "Those five men—their families are heartbroken as well. They hurt a lot of people when they did this. I don't understand why they had to do this to my son."
Tyre Nichols' mother on violent confrontationwww.youtube.com
Some civil rights leaders called on Congress to take action to prevent such incidents.
"It is only right that the Memphis Police Department takes the necessary additional steps to hold these officers accountable for their role in ripping apart a family and traumatizing a community. However, this is far from what justice looks like. Justice looks like the 535 members of Congress taking the time to turn their 'thoughts and prayers' into action and change," said NAACP president and CEO Derrick Johnson in response to Thursday's charges.
Johnson added:
Congress: Do something. By failing to write a piece of legislation, you're writing another obituary. By failing to pass the legislation, you're passing on your sworn duty to protect the people. We know just how much all of you will be thinking and praying upon the release of the video, you don't need to mention it. Instead, tell us what you're going to do about it. Tell us what you're going to do to honor Tyre Nichols. Tell us what you're going to do to show his family, his loving son, and this entire nation, that his life was not lost in vain. We can name all the victims of police violence, but we can't name a single law you have passed to address it.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act—named after the unarmed Black man murdered by Minneapolis police in May 2020—was introduced by then-Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) in February 2021. The proposed legislation, which, among other reforms, would have banned police chokeholds and ended so-called qualified immunity for officers, passed the following month by a mostly party-line vote of 220-212. However, the bill failed to pass the Senate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Housing Crisis Deepens, Corporate Landlords Applaud 'Weak' Biden Renter Protections
"The Biden administration has apparently decided to assume that corporate landlords are good-faith actors with their tenants' best interests at heart, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, and just plain common sense."
Jan 26, 2023
Economic justice advocates on Thursday said that to determine the strength of the Biden administration's new nonbinding push for renter protections from the federal and state governments and private sector, one needs to look only at the elated response from corporate landlords.
The Revolving Door Project (RDP) pointed to comments from the National Apartment Association (NAA) and the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), lobbying groups that represents landlords, that followed the White House's unveiling on Wednesday of its "Resident-Centered Housing Challenge" and "Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights."
"What we can say with certainty is NAA's advocacy helped avert an executive order advanced by renters advocates and members of Congress, which would have imposed immediate policy changes," said the NAA in a statement on Thursday.
\u201cNEW: Corporate landlords are celebrating Biden's weak new renter protection plan, openly boasting that their lobbying efforts stopped the White House from issuing a more powerful executive order to immediately crack down on rent-gouging. \nhttps://t.co/3lLbUwXhXB\u201d— Revolving Door Project (@Revolving Door Project) 1674758300
"The NMHC—which does the bidding of the nation's leading corporate landlords—celebrated the omission of national rent control from the White House plan while also objecting to other 'onerous regulations' contained in the release, which it claimed would 'discourage much-needed investments in housing supply,'" said Andrea Beaty, research director for the RDP.
"The Biden administration has apparently decided to assume that corporate landlords are good-faith actors with their tenants' best interests at heart, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, and just plain common sense," added Beaty. "The best the Biden administration offered is industry-approved, nonbinding measures that kick the can down the road."
The lobbying groups' response came as housing justice advocates noted that they have spent roughly a year calling on President Joe Biden to do everything in its power to address housing insecurity and the crisis facing households that are rent-burdened.
As Moody's Analytics reported on Thursday, the average U.S. tenant is now rent-burdened, which is defined as paying 30% or more of a household's income on rent.
"Tenant stories and expertise informed these actions, and tenants will continue to be central to policymaking that concerns their lives."
The firm compared the national median household income—$71,721—with 2022's average rent of $1,794. In 2021 the average renter paid 28.5% of their income on rent, and in 2020 they paid 25.7%.
The latest statistics represent "a symbolic threshold, a milestone," Thomas LaSalvia, director of economic research at Moody's, toldThe New York Times.
"The rent-to-income ratio continued to climb up because income growth was not able to catch up with the rent growth," Lu Chen, a senior economist at the firm, told the newspaper.
Following months of meetings between tenant groups and administration officials, as well as advocacy by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on behalf of renters, the White House on Wednesday proposed a number of actions the government will take to gather data about the housing crisis and push federal agencies—but not require them—to consider how they can curb rent costs.
The White House said it had secured commitments from the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to "collect information to identify practices that unfairly prevent applicants and tenants from accessing or staying in housing."
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) said it would "launch a new public process to examine proposed actions promoting renter protections and limits on egregious rent increases for future investments," while a workshop by the U.S. Department of Justice will address "anti-competitive information sharing, including in rental markets."
The Biden administration also said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will propose new rules requiring public housing and rental assistance authorities to provide 30 days' notice before terminating a lease due to rent nonpayment.
The White House also released a nonbinding Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights, affirming tenants have the right to clear and fair leases, to organize, and to have access to safe, quality, and affordable housing. Its Resident-Centered Housing Challenge, starting in the spring, will encourage state and local governments to enhance policies that promote fairness in the rental market, urging them to "make their own independent commitments that improve the quality of life for renters."
People's Action, whose Homes Guarantee campaign helped lead efforts to secure renter protections and rent price regulations, said its organizers helped "shape this policy for the better," and said the commitment from the FHFA offers an opportunity for the agency "to create a policy that helps check the power of landlords."
But as the NAA boasted, People's Action told The Washington Post that the policies will not change "tenants' lives materially today."
"Tenant stories and expertise informed these actions, and tenants will continue to be central to policymaking that concerns their lives," said Tara Raghuveer, director of the Homes Guarantee campaign. "The rent is still too damn high. While the White House announcement affirms a role for the federal government in correcting the imbalance of power between landlords and tenants, the president can do much more to provide relief to tenants. We are counting on this administration to continue working with our campaign to make it happen."
Ahead of Biden's proposal, People's Action led 281 national and local tenant organizations in calling on the White House to direct federal agencies to:
- Protect tenants from unfair, unjust, and unaffordable rent hikes, fines, and fees through rent regulation;
- Expand and enforce tenant protections by defining "good cause" eviction; and
- Address the consolidation of the rental market by corporate landlords.
"Rent is a significant economic issue the Biden administration has the opportunity to tackle. They should take it," Raghuveer said. "These actions are the essential components of any meaningful strategy to protect tenants, and they complement other White House priorities to strengthen and grow the American economy, like their work to limit market consolidation and monopoly price-setting power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.