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
Latest Possible Israeli 'War Crime' in Gaza Used 500-lb US-Made Bombs: Report
The attack on a crowded café has been described by international law experts as wildly disproportionate, following new reporting about the munitions used.
Jul 03, 2025
International law experts are describing Israel's Monday attack on a Gaza café as a potential war crime after an investigation in The Guardian revealed that the attack was carried out using a 500-lb bomb supplied by the U.S. government.
Reporters photographed fragments of the bomb left behind in the wreckage of the al-Baqa Café. Weapons experts identified them as parts of an MK-82 general purpose bomb, which it called "a US-made staple of many bombing campaigns in recent decades."
The attack killed anywhere from 24 to 36 Palestinians and injured dozens more. Casualties included women, children, and the elderly. A prominent photojournalist and artist were also killed.
Experts have called the use of such a weapon on an area full of civilians wildly disproportionate and a likely violation of the Geneva Convention, which outlaws military operations that cause "incidental loss of civilian life" that is "excessive or disproportionate" to the military advantage to be gained.
"It is almost impossible to see how this use of that kind of munition can be justified," said Marc Schack, an associate professor of international law at the University of Copenhagen in comments to The Guardian. "If you are talking about 20, 30, 40 or more civilian casualties, usually that would have to be a target of very great importance."
After the attack drew heavy criticism, an army spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the strike had killed "several Hamas terrorists" and that "prior to the strike, steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harming civilians using aerial surveillance."
Gerry Simpson of Human Rights Watch criticized that defense.
"The Israeli military hasn't said exactly whom it was targeting, but it said it used aerial surveillance to minimize civilian casualties, which means it knew the café was teeming with customers at the time," Simpson told The Guardian. "The military would also have known that using a large guided air-dropped bomb would kill and maim many of the civilians there. The use of such a large weapon in an obviously crowded café risks that this was an unlawful disproportionate or indiscriminate attack and should be investigated as a war crime."
Since Monday's bombing, the attacks against civilians in Gaza have only intensified. According to a Thursday report from the Gaza Government Media Office, more than 300 Palestinians have been killed within the last 48 hours in "26 bloody massacres."
According to reporting Thursday from Al Jazeera, these have included attacks on "shelters and displacement centers overcrowded with tens of thousands of displaced people, public rest areas, Palestinian families inside their homes, popular markets and vital civilian facilities, and starving civilians searching for food."
At least 33 people were killed Thursday at a Gaza Humanitarian Fund (GHF) aid distribution site, adding to the hundreds of aid seekers who have been killed in recent weeks. In a Haaretz investigation last week, soldiers described these aid sites, administered by the U.S. and Israel, as a "killing field," where they have routinely been ordered to fire on unarmed civilians who posed no threat.
Two American contractors at a GHF site told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that their colleagues fired their guns wildly, including in the direction of Palestinians. They provided a video which shows hundreds of aid-seekers crowded between metal gates, being assaulted with stun grenades and pepper spray, while gunshots echo in the background.
On Tuesday, Amnesty International and hundreds of other humanitarian NGOs called for an end to the Israeli government's blockade of food and other necessities entering the Gaza Strip. They also called for an end to the "deadly Israeli distribution scheme" and for a return of aid distribution to the United Nations and other international organizations.
"This devastating daily loss of life as desperate Palestinians try to collect aid is the consequence of their deliberate targeting by Israeli forces and the foreseeable consequence of irresponsible and lethal methods of distribution," said Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, on Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Will Be Many More': Citing GOP Medicaid Cuts, Rural Nebraska Clinic Announces Closure
"Republicans haven't passed their bill yet, but if you live in Nebraska you can thank them for making you less healthy," wrote Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.).
Jul 03, 2025
The devastating cuts to Medicaid contained in Republicans' budget bill have not yet gone into effect but are already having negative consequences for American healthcare.
Nebraska Public Media reports Thursday that the Curtis Medical Center, a clinic located in a rural Nebraska community with a population of under 1,000 residents, will soon shut down thanks in part to the expected impact the GOP's cuts to Medicaid will have on its finances.
Troy Bruntz, the president and CEO of Curtis Medical Center owner Community Hospital, said in a news release that the coming Medicaid cuts are tipping many financially challenged health clinics into insolvency.
"The current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services, many of which have faced significant financial challenges for years," he explained.
Nebraska Public Media notes that the Curtis clinic is likely just the first domino in the state's rural healthcare system to fall thanks to the Medicaid cuts and it speaks to recent warnings from people like Jed Hansen, executive director for the Nebraska Rural Health Association, about how many other hospitals are in real danger.
"We currently have six hospitals that that we feel are in a critical financial state, three that are in an impending kind of closure or conversion over to the rural emergency hospital model," Hansen said earlier this week during an online forum about the state's crisis. "We would likely see the closures within a year to two years of once [the Medicaid cuts are] fully enacted."
Other experts have sounded similar alarms on the budget bill's impact on rural hospitals. Sharon Parrott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote earlier this week that Senate Republicans' efforts to create a fund of money earmarked for rural hospitals would prove woefully inadequate to the problems these institutions will face in the coming years.
"Senate Republicans know the bill would hurt rural hospitals—that's why they added a face-saving temporary fund, but it won't rescue rural providers when the funding runs dry and the permanent cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage remain," explained Parrott. "This is particularly true because the revised Senate fund gives the Health and Human Services secretary significant discretion in how the funds would be allocated. Rural providers need people in their communities to have health coverage they can count on. Without that, more rural hospitals will close and more people with and without coverage will be cut off from care they need."
In an analysis released last month, the American Hospital Association (AHA) estimated that 1.8 million individuals in rural communities would lose their Medicaid coverage under the Republican Party's plan while rural hospitals would receive $50.4 billion less in Medicaid funds over the next decade, putting many of them at severe risk of shutting down completely.
"The Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would devastate rural hospitals across the country" if the bill became law, warned AHA president and CEO Rick Pollack. "Many rural hospitals would be forced to choose between maintaining services, keeping staff and possibly closing their doors. Patients would be forced to travel hours for basic or emergency care, and communities would suffer."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) cited the story about the Nebraska clinic on X Thursday morning and predicted it was just the beginning of bad things to come for rural hospitals.
"Republicans haven't passed their bill yet, but if you live in... Nebraska you can thank them for making you less healthy," he wrote. "There will be many more."
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the GOP budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would result in more than 10 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Lies About Budget Bill's Tax Cuts as US Public Opposes Giveaway to Rich
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt misleadingly touted tax deductions for overtime and tips—while neglecting to mention the bill's much larger tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
Jul 03, 2025
As the Republican reconciliation bill barrels toward final passage in Congress, the Trump White House is misrepresenting the measure's tax provisions in an attempt to paint the unpopular legislation as a boon for workers and ordinary seniors rather than a massive handout to the wealthiest Americans.
In an X post late Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that any lawmaker who opposes the 887-page bill is voting against "no tax on tips," "no tax on overtime," and "no tax on Social Security" benefits.
Leavitt's post was sufficiently misleading as to draw a "community note" on the Elon Musk-owned platform, which clarified that the Republican bill "does not fully eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security as claimed; it offers limited deductions with caps (e.g., $25,000 for tips, $12,500 for overtime) and excludes high earners, with no provision to remove taxes on Social Security."
As Axios reported Thursday, the Republican legislation does include "an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older," but the benefit "leaves out the poorest seniors" and expires in 2028, when President Donald Trump is set to leave office.
The tax deductions for overtime and tips also expire in 2028.
That's unlike the major tax breaks for the wealthy that are included in the legislation, which extends soon-to-expire provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law. For example, the new Republican bill would permanently raise the estate tax exemption, allowing ultrawealthy individuals and married couples to give their heirs up to $15 million or $30 million without paying any federal taxes.
"A married couple worth $30 million where both spouses die in 2026 would pay some $6 million less under the bill compared with current law," The Wall Street Journal observed.
Brendan Duke, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that the GOP reconciliation bill's tax breaks for the richest 1% are roughly 10 times larger than the tax deductions for tips and overtime combined.
You left something out. https://t.co/LwMFX2nbyM pic.twitter.com/9Dn2FoBZNH
— Brendan Duke (@Brendan_Duke) July 3, 2025
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) noted in a recent analysis that the Senate-passed legislation also "includes permanent corporate tax breaks (involving more generous versions of tax rules for bonus depreciation, research, and limits on interest deductions) that lawmakers have attempted to enact in recent years."
Contrary to the Trump White House's characterization of the reconciliation bill as a historic "middle- and working-class tax cut," ITEP found that "the richest 1% of Americans would receive a total of $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026."
By contrast, according to ITEP, "the middle 20% of taxpayers on the income scale, a group that has 20 times the number of taxpayers as the richest 1%, would receive less than half that much, $53 billion in net tax cuts that year."
"The effects of President Trump's tariff policies alone offset most of the tax cuts for the bottom 80% of Americans," the group added. "For the bottom 40% of Americans, the tariffs impose a cost that is greater than the tax cuts they would receive under this legislation."
Survey data released Wednesday by Data for Progress shows that the Republican legislation is unpopular with a majority of likely U.S. voters. The new poll, conducted between June 27 and July 1, found that 62% of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about the bill's "cuts to income taxes on wealthy Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular