SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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
'Epitome of Crony Capitalism': Hollywood Stars Come Out Swinging at Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
"The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences."
Apr 13, 2026
A group of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers on Monday published an open letter demanding the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery be blocked.
In their letter, the Hollywood heavyweights outlined the harms that would come from allowing Paramount—which is owned by David Ellison, son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison—to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
"This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries—and the audiences we serve—can least afford it," the letter states. "The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world. Alarmingly, this merger would reduce the number of major US film studios to just four."
The letter goes on to describe how consolidation in the entertainment industry has already "accelerated the disappearance of the mid-budget film, the erosion of independent distribution, the collapse of the international sales market, the elimination of meaningful profit participation, and the weakening of screen credit integrity."
Looking at the bigger picture, the letter notes that "competition is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy," then goes on to praise California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state AGs for filing legal actions aimed at blocking the merger amid fears that the Trump administration could rubber-stamp it.
"We are grateful for their leadership," the letter concludes, "and stand ready to support all efforts to preserve competition, protect jobs, and ensure a vibrant future for our industry, for American culture, and for our single most significant export."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, a signatory of the letter, published an article on his Substack page outlining his own reasons for opposing the merger, which he described as "the epitome of crony capitalism and the oligarchs consolidating more corporations and media power to shape the outcome of their business interests."
Ruffalo also said he's spoken with others in Hollywood who were reluctant to sign the letter over concerns about retaliation from Trump or Ellison should the attempt to block the merger fail.
"The people pushing monopolies such as this one use fear to keep the workers in line," Ruffalo said. "I have heard it time and time again from my fellows, they are afraid of retribution. Some didn’t want to sign because they are afraid. How sad is that? In America the artists are afraid to speak out against power."
Actress Jane Fonda, founder of the modern Committee for the First Amendment, said that the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger "would be one of the most destructive threats to free speech and creative expression in our history," because it would put "unprecedented power in the hands of a single corporation that already appears to have proven itself willing to sacrifice integrity for political favor."
The letter earned praise from democracy and antitrust advocates, who argued that blocking the merger was necessary to stopping President Donald Trump's ambitions for a right-wing takeover of US media.
“The future of free media and a strong entertainment industry in America is at stake here,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “This proposed merger would not only harm competition and creativity, it would erode the very bedrock of our democracy."
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, noted that "consolidation in Hollywood has been a disaster, and has led to the weak state of the industry," and said the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger needed to be blocked to prevent further damage.
"Not only does this kind of concentration hollow out creative markets," said Stoller, "it concentrates control over culture and information in the hands of a few unaccountable executives, and in this case totalitarian Gulf countries, undermining a free and pluralistic media ecosystem that democracy depends on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Congress Back in DC, Sanders Plans Another Vote on Blocking US Weapons to Israel Over Genocide
"The extremist Netanyahu government that has committed genocide in Gaza does not need more military support from American taxpayers."
Apr 13, 2026
With members of Congress returning to Washington, DC, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday pledged that he will, yet again, force a vote aimed at cutting off the flow of US weapons to Israel over its genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"I will be forcing a vote on legislation to block the sale of nearly half a billion dollars worth of bombs and bulldozers to the Israeli military," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media, taking aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court over the mass slaughter in Gaza.
"The extremist Netanyahu government that has committed genocide in Gaza does not need more military support from American taxpayers," declared Sanders, who has forced multiple votes on measures targeting US arms to Israel since it began bombarding Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack.
The next vote, which could come as soon as Wednesday, follows a similar effort last July, when a majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus backed his resolutions disapproving of the Trump administration's sale of 1,000-pound bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits, and tens of thousands of assault rifles to the Israeli government. Previous votes had garnered less support.
"The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," Sanders said last summer, after the resolutions failed. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
Republicans currently have narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, though Democrats aim to flip both in the November midterm elections.
According to a Pew Research poll released last week, 60% of US adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year, and 59% have little or no confidence that Netanyahu will do the right thing regarding world affairs, up from 52% in 2025.
Although much of the world's attention has been focused on Netanyahu and President Donald Trump's war on Iran—and Israel's related assault on Lebanon—in recent weeks, Israeli forces have also continued to kill Palestinians in Gaza, despite an October 2025 ceasefire agreement.
As of Monday, Gaza officials put the death toll at 72,333, with another 172,202 wounded, though global experts have warned the true figures could be far higher. Over 750 deaths and 2,100 injuries have been recorded since the ceasefire took effect, with another 760 bodies recovered during that time.
"At least two children a day have been killed or injured in the six months since the ceasefire for Gaza was agreed," said Save the Children International CEO Inger Ashing last week, as her group and others released a report marking six months since the deal was reached. “This is not peace for children in Gaza. The ceasefire agreement has not translated into meaningful protection for children or created conditions for recovery."
Among the children killed was Ritaj Rihan, a 9-year-old girl reportedly shot by Israeli forces in front of her third grade class at Abu Ubaida bin al-Jarrah School in Beit Lahiya last week. The Gaza Ministry of Health said that "it was not an isolated incident, but a direct extension of a systematic policy targeting the Palestinian people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Tosses Trump's $10 Billion Wall Street Journal-Murdoch Suit Over Epstein Reporting
The fight seemingly isn't over, with a spokesperson for the president pledging that he will "refile this powerhouse lawsuit," which critics have called part of his war on free speech.
Apr 13, 2026
A Florida-based federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a "bawdy" birthday letter the Republican allegedly gave to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump denies writing the letter or drawing the outline of a naked woman around the text. He sued the journalists behind the July report—Joseph Palazzolo and Khadeeja Safdar—and the newspaper, plus its parent company News Corp, chief executive Robert Thomson, and founder Rupert Murdoch.
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subsequently subpoenaed the Epstein estate for all materials that now-imprisoned co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly compiled for the dead financier's birthday book, including the letter attributed to Trump—and in September, the panel published those documents online.
US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, found on Monday that Trump's "complaint fails to adequately allege actual malice." However, Gayles also gave Trump the opportunity to amend his filing within the next two weeks.
While The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement that the president intends to continue the case.
"President Trump will follow Judge Gayles' ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and all of the other defendants," the spokesperson said. "The president will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People."
CNN noted that despite the legal battle, "the 95-year-old Murdoch has maintained a cozy if complicated relationship with the president, including multiple meetings at the White House in recent months."
The suit over the birthday letter to Epstein—whom Trump was publicly friends with in the 1980s and '90s until a reported falling out in the early 2000s—is just part of a sweeping effort by the president and his political enablers "to undermine and chill the most basic freedoms protected under the First Amendment," as the advocacy group Free Press put it in a December analysis.
In addition to the Journal case, examples included Trump's legal battles with the BBC and The New York Times, the White House taking control of the presidential press pool, the administration blocking The Associated Press from the Oval Office over its refusal to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, ABC temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel following comments from Trump's Federal Communications Commission chair, and the Pentagon's legally contested media policy.
Such attacks continue. Last month, as the costs of his unconstitutional war on Iran mounted, Trump floated "treason" charges against media outlets that he accused of reporting false information about the conflict.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular