If Google were ordered to spin off Chrome, the browser could be sold for as much as $50 billion, DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg told a court Wednesday (April 23).
\nWeinberg, whose company is a search engine and browser rival of Google, said this while testifying during the Google antitrust trial, Bloomberg reported Wednesday.
\nIn that trial, the court is considering remedies after determining that Google has a monopoly in the search market. One remedy proposed by the Department of Justice would require the company to sell Chrome.
\nIn his \u201cback-of-the-envelope\u201d estimate of the value of Chrome, Weinberg said he focused on the browser\u2019s user base, according to the report.
\nThe estimate is higher than the $20 billion value estimated by Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh in November, and a $50 billion price tag could reduce the number of offers for the browser, the report said.
\nOpenAI Head of Product and ChatGPT Nick Turley told the court Tuesday (April 22) that OpenAI and \u201cmany other parties\u201d would try to buy Chrome if it were available.
\nChatGPT can be downloaded as an extension for the Chrome browser, but it would be a better product if Chrome were more deeply integrated into OpenAI, Turley said.
\nIn that case, OpenAI would \u201chave the ability to introduce users into what an AI-first experience looks like,\u201d he added.
\nTurley also told the court Tuesday that OpenAI approached Google about a partnership to power ChatGPT last summer but got turned down.
\nOpenAI was experiencing issues with its existing search provider and was years away from having ChatGPT be able to answer most queries using its own search technology, so the company asked Google about an API that would improve the AI chatbot\u2019s ability to deliver accurate and up-to-date answers, Turley said.
\nGoogle declined the request in August, he added.
\nThis three-week antitrust trial started Monday (April 21) and is being heard by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, the same judge who ruled in August that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in the search business with practices like paying Apple to make its search engine the default option on that company\u2019s devices.
\nThe post Google\u2019s Chrome Worth $50 Billion, DuckDuckGo CEO Tells Court appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "If Google were ordered to spin off Chrome, the browser could be sold for as much as $50 billion, DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg told a court Wednesday (April 23).\nWeinberg, whose company is a search engine and browser rival of Google, said this while testifying during the Google antitrust trial, Bloomberg reported Wednesday.\nIn that trial, the court is considering remedies after determining that Google has a monopoly in the search market. One remedy proposed by the Department of Justice would require the company to sell Chrome.\nIn his \u201cback-of-the-envelope\u201d estimate of the value of Chrome, Weinberg said he focused on the browser\u2019s user base, according to the report.\nThe estimate is higher than the $20 billion value estimated by Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mandeep Singh in November, and a $50 billion price tag could reduce the number of offers for the browser, the report said.\nOpenAI Head of Product and ChatGPT Nick Turley told the court Tuesday (April 22) that OpenAI and \u201cmany other parties\u201d would try to buy Chrome if it were available.\nChatGPT can be downloaded as an extension for the Chrome browser, but it would be a better product if Chrome were more deeply integrated into OpenAI, Turley said.\nIn that case, OpenAI would \u201chave the ability to introduce users into what an AI-first experience looks like,\u201d he added.\nTurley also told the court Tuesday that OpenAI approached Google about a partnership to power ChatGPT last summer but got turned down.\nOpenAI was experiencing issues with its existing search provider and was years away from having ChatGPT be able to answer most queries using its own search technology, so the company asked Google about an API that would improve the AI chatbot\u2019s ability to deliver accurate and up-to-date answers, Turley said.\nGoogle declined the request in August, he added.\nThis three-week antitrust trial started Monday (April 21) and is being heard by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, the same judge who ruled in August that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in the search business with practices like paying Apple to make its search engine the default option on that company\u2019s devices.\nThe post Google\u2019s Chrome Worth $50 Billion, DuckDuckGo CEO Tells Court appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-04-23T17:58:38-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-23T17:58:38-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Google-Chrome.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "Big Tech", "Chrome", "Department of Justice", "DuckDuckGo", "Google", "Lawsuits", "legal", "News", "PYMNTS News", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2689126", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/ma-activity-remains-quiet-amid-uncertainty-about-new-administration/", "title": "M&A Activity Remains Quiet Amid Uncertainty About New Administration", "content_html": "The mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market has reportedly remained quiet so far this year as potential dealmakers try to get a sense of the Trump Administration\u2019s stance on antitrust regulation.
\nYear to date, through April 21, the number of deals is down 19%, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Tuesday (April 22), citing data from LSEG.
\nIn February, there was no announcement of a deal valued over $10 billion globally \u2014 and that was the first time in 25 months that was the case \u2014 the report said.
\nMarch saw two large deals announced, with Google acquiring Wiz and Sycamore Partners taking over\u00a0Walgreens Boots Alliance, according to the report.
\nIn April, even with Global Payments saying it would acquire Worldpay for $24 billion, the number of deals is down 45% year over year, and the value is down 1%, the report said.
\nMerger activity commonly slows during the first months of a new administration in Washington, D.C., but the market has also been rattled by the trade war, President Donald Trump\u2019s threats to fire Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell and uncertainty about how administration officials will view M&A deals that could have antitrust implications, according to the report.
\nStill, dealmakers expect the agencies of the Trump Administration to be more flexible in approving deals than was the Biden Administration, the report said.
\nMany are watching the Google-Wiz deal to see if that is the case, per the report. The report also noted that Capital One\u2019s previously announced $35 billion acquisition of Discover got conditional approval this month.
\nIt was reported in December that there was increased enthusiasm about dealmaking after Trump\u2019s election, with some predicting a more favorable regulatory environment, but many saying it was too soon to tell what shape the new administration\u2019s economic policies would take.
\nOn March 24, it was reported that despite the hopes of some in the banking world that the new administration would provide a more friendly regulatory environment, ushering in a new era of \u201cmegamergers,\u201d those predictions had not yet come to pass.
\nAs the first quarter was coming to a close, amid uncertainty about Trump Administration policies, the number of transactions worldwide had fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade.
\nThe post M&A Activity Remains Quiet Amid Uncertainty About New Administration appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "The mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market has reportedly remained quiet so far this year as potential dealmakers try to get a sense of the Trump Administration\u2019s stance on antitrust regulation.\nYear to date, through April 21, the number of deals is down 19%, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Tuesday (April 22), citing data from LSEG.\nIn February, there was no announcement of a deal valued over $10 billion globally \u2014 and that was the first time in 25 months that was the case \u2014 the report said.\nMarch saw two large deals announced, with Google acquiring Wiz and Sycamore Partners taking over\u00a0Walgreens Boots Alliance, according to the report.\nIn April, even with Global Payments saying it would acquire Worldpay for $24 billion, the number of deals is down 45% year over year, and the value is down 1%, the report said.\nMerger activity commonly slows during the first months of a new administration in Washington, D.C., but the market has also been rattled by the trade war, President Donald Trump\u2019s threats to fire Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell and uncertainty about how administration officials will view M&A deals that could have antitrust implications, according to the report.\nStill, dealmakers expect the agencies of the Trump Administration to be more flexible in approving deals than was the Biden Administration, the report said.\nMany are watching the Google-Wiz deal to see if that is the case, per the report. The report also noted that Capital One\u2019s previously announced $35 billion acquisition of Discover got conditional approval this month.\nIt was reported in December that there was increased enthusiasm about dealmaking after Trump\u2019s election, with some predicting a more favorable regulatory environment, but many saying it was too soon to tell what shape the new administration\u2019s economic policies would take.\nOn March 24, it was reported that despite the hopes of some in the banking world that the new administration would provide a more friendly regulatory environment, ushering in a new era of \u201cmegamergers,\u201d those predictions had not yet come to pass.\nAs the first quarter was coming to a close, amid uncertainty about Trump Administration policies, the number of transactions worldwide had fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade.\nThe post M&A Activity Remains Quiet Amid Uncertainty About New Administration appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-04-22T11:09:31-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-22T11:09:31-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/mergers-acquisitions-administration.png", "tags": [ "acquisitions", "ANTITRUST", "dealmaking", "M&A", "mergers", "mergers and acquisitions", "News", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "trump administration", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2688394", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/court-to-begin-considering-remedies-in-google-search-antitrust-trial/", "title": "Court to Begin Considering Remedies in Google Search Antitrust Trial", "content_html": "Google will argue against a breakup of the company in a three-week trial starting Monday (April 21), while the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general will advocate for the remedies they have proposed for Google\u2019s dominance in the search market.
\nThe trial will be heard by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, the same judge who ruled in August that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in the search business with practices like paying Apple to make its search engine the default option on that company\u2019s devices, Bloomberg reported Monday.
\nThe changes proposed by the Justice Department include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, license search data to competitors and stop paying other companies to make its products the primary choice on their devices and services, according to the report.
\nGoogle argues that those moves would degrade the products consumers use every day and proposes instead that consumers be allowed to select their preferred browser and that Google then be able to split revenue with competitors, per the report.
\nGoogle Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland wrote in a Sunday (April 20) blog post that the company will appeal the judge\u2019s decision in the lawsuit, as it has long said it would, and that in the meantime the company will argue that the Justice Department\u2019s proposals \u201cgo miles beyond the Court\u2019s decision, and would hurt America\u2019s consumers, economy and technological leadership.\u201d
\nMehta has said he will probably make his decision on the remedies by August, according to the Bloomberg report.
\nThe verdict announced in August in the antitrust case marked a turning point in a legal battle that began when the Justice Department and 11 states filed their case in October 2020.
\nImmediately after the antitrust ruling, Google vowed that it would appeal the verdict, with Kent Walker, global affairs president at Google, telling PYMNTS that the decision \u201crecognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available.\u201d
\nThe verdict and the court\u2019s delay in recommending remedies left observers speculating about the implications it would have on the connected economy.
\nThe Justice Department officially recommended breaking up Google in November, saying in a court document that bold measures are necessary to restore competition.
\nThe post Court to Begin Considering Remedies in Google Search Antitrust Trial appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Google will argue against a breakup of the company in a three-week trial starting Monday (April 21), while the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general will advocate for the remedies they have proposed for Google\u2019s dominance in the search market.\nThe trial will be heard by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, the same judge who ruled in August that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in the search business with practices like paying Apple to make its search engine the default option on that company\u2019s devices, Bloomberg reported Monday.\nThe changes proposed by the Justice Department include forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, license search data to competitors and stop paying other companies to make its products the primary choice on their devices and services, according to the report.\nGoogle argues that those moves would degrade the products consumers use every day and proposes instead that consumers be allowed to select their preferred browser and that Google then be able to split revenue with competitors, per the report.\nGoogle Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland wrote in a Sunday (April 20) blog post that the company will appeal the judge\u2019s decision in the lawsuit, as it has long said it would, and that in the meantime the company will argue that the Justice Department\u2019s proposals \u201cgo miles beyond the Court\u2019s decision, and would hurt America\u2019s consumers, economy and technological leadership.\u201d\nMehta has said he will probably make his decision on the remedies by August, according to the Bloomberg report.\nThe verdict announced in August in the antitrust case marked a turning point in a legal battle that began when the Justice Department and 11 states filed their case in October 2020.\nImmediately after the antitrust ruling, Google vowed that it would appeal the verdict, with Kent Walker, global affairs president at Google, telling PYMNTS that the decision \u201crecognizes that Google offers the best search engine but concludes that we shouldn\u2019t be allowed to make it easily available.\u201d\nThe verdict and the court\u2019s delay in recommending remedies left observers speculating about the implications it would have on the connected economy.\nThe Justice Department officially recommended breaking up Google in November, saying in a court document that bold measures are necessary to restore competition.\nThe post Court to Begin Considering Remedies in Google Search Antitrust Trial appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-04-21T10:30:02-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-21T10:30:02-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Google.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "Department of Justice", "Google", "Google Chrome", "Google search", "justice department", "legal", "News", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2686872", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/google-trial-judge-tech-giant-holds-illegal-ad-monopoly/", "title": "Google Trial Judge: Tech Giant Holds Illegal Ad Monopoly", "content_html": "A federal judge has ruled that\u00a0Google\u00a0holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology.
\nAs The New York Times\u00a0reported\u00a0Thursday (April 17), Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google had violated the law to establish its dominance in the online advertising system.
\nThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a group of states had\u00a0sued the company, claiming that its monopoly in advertising technology (AdTech) helped Google charge higher prices and take a larger portion of each sale.
\n\u201cIn addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google\u2019s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,\u201d said Judge Brinkema, who also dismissed one portion of the government\u2019s case.
\nThe NYT report notes that the ruling adds to other legal troubles facing the $1.88 trillion company, issues that could reshape Google and alter the power it holds over the internet.
\n\u201cWe won half of this case and we will appeal the other half. The Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don\u2019t harm competition,\u201d\u00a0Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google\u2019s vice president for regulatory affairs, said in a statement provided to PYMNTS.
\n\u201cWe disagree with the Court\u2019s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.\u201d
\nThe company at trial had offered up expert testimony from economist Mark Israel, who argued regulates had focused too much on a small part of the\u00a0online advertising sector \u2014 specifically, \u201copen web display advertising,\u201d which includes the rectangular ads that normally show up on websites when people browse on desktop computers.
\nIsrael testified that this definition ignores the wider scope of competition faced by Google in the changing digital landscape, stressing that advertisers have increasingly shifted their spending to social media platforms such as Facebook and TikTok, or major online retailers like Amazon.
\nThe ruling follows a decision from another judge last year that Google holds an online search monopoly. Now, that judge is considering a request by the DOJ to\u00a0break up the company. The government has also sought to have Google sell some of its AdTech business.
\nMeanwhile, Google is also facing a\u00a0$6.6 billion lawsuit\u00a0in the United Kingdom. Filed this week, the suit claims the company exploited its dominant position in the online search market to drive up advertising costs for businesses.
\nGoogle has called the case meritless, with a spokesperson telling Reuters it was \u201cyet another speculative and opportunistic case.\u201d
\nThe post Google Trial Judge: Tech Giant Holds Illegal Ad Monopoly appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "A federal judge has ruled that\u00a0Google\u00a0holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology.\nAs The New York Times\u00a0reported\u00a0Thursday (April 17), Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google had violated the law to establish its dominance in the online advertising system.\nThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and a group of states had\u00a0sued the company, claiming that its monopoly in advertising technology (AdTech) helped Google charge higher prices and take a larger portion of each sale.\n\u201cIn addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google\u2019s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,\u201d said Judge Brinkema, who also dismissed one portion of the government\u2019s case.\nThe NYT report notes that the ruling adds to other legal troubles facing the $1.88 trillion company, issues that could reshape Google and alter the power it holds over the internet.\n\u201cWe won half of this case and we will appeal the other half. The Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don\u2019t harm competition,\u201d\u00a0Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google\u2019s vice president for regulatory affairs, said in a statement provided to PYMNTS.\n\u201cWe disagree with the Court\u2019s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.\u201d\nThe company at trial had offered up expert testimony from economist Mark Israel, who argued regulates had focused too much on a small part of the\u00a0online advertising sector \u2014 specifically, \u201copen web display advertising,\u201d which includes the rectangular ads that normally show up on websites when people browse on desktop computers.\nIsrael testified that this definition ignores the wider scope of competition faced by Google in the changing digital landscape, stressing that advertisers have increasingly shifted their spending to social media platforms such as Facebook and TikTok, or major online retailers like Amazon.\nThe ruling follows a decision from another judge last year that Google holds an online search monopoly. Now, that judge is considering a request by the DOJ to\u00a0break up the company. The government has also sought to have Google sell some of its AdTech business.\nMeanwhile, Google is also facing a\u00a0$6.6 billion lawsuit\u00a0in the United Kingdom. Filed this week, the suit claims the company exploited its dominant position in the online search market to drive up advertising costs for businesses.\nGoogle has called the case meritless, with a spokesperson telling Reuters it was \u201cyet another speculative and opportunistic case.\u201d\nThe post Google Trial Judge: Tech Giant Holds Illegal Ad Monopoly appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-04-17T14:44:08-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-17T14:44:08-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/google-ads.jpg", "tags": [ "AdTech", "advertising", "advertising technology", "ANTITRUST", "Big Tech", "Department of Justice", "Google", "Google Ads", "justice department", "Lawsuits", "News", "online advertising", "PYMNTS News", "Technology", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2686785", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/key-dates-in-googles-adtech-monopoly-case-from-filing-to-federal-ruling/", "title": "Key Dates in Google\u2019s AdTech Monopoly Case From Filing to Federal Ruling", "content_html": "A federal judge\u2019s landmark ruling Thursday (April 17) found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing the online advertising technology market, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle between regulators and Big Tech. The decision comes after more than two years of legal wrangling, with the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states arguing that Google\u2019s dominance in digital ad infrastructure has stifled competition and harmed publishers, advertisers and consumers alike. The following timeline traces the key developments in the case, from the initial lawsuit to today\u2019s historic judgment.
\nThe post Key Dates in Google\u2019s AdTech Monopoly Case From Filing to Federal Ruling appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "A federal judge\u2019s landmark ruling Thursday (April 17) found Google guilty of illegally monopolizing the online advertising technology market, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle between regulators and Big Tech. The decision comes after more than two years of legal wrangling, with the U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of states arguing that Google\u2019s dominance in digital ad infrastructure has stifled competition and harmed publishers, advertisers and consumers alike. The following timeline traces the key developments in the case, from the initial lawsuit to today\u2019s historic judgment.\nJanuary 24, 2023 \u2013 Lawsuit Filed\n\nThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 17 states file an antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.\nThe suit alleges Google illegally monopolized the advertising technology (AdTech) market, violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, and seeks to force Google to divest significant portions of its AdTech business.\n\nMarch\u2013April 2023 \u2013 Early Legal Maneuvers\n\nGoogle requests to move the case to New York, which Judge Leonie Brinkema denies.\nGoogle files a motion to dismiss; Brinkema denies it, allowing the case to proceed.\n\nAugust\u2013September 2023 \u2013 Recusal Attempt\n\nGoogle seeks the recusal of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, citing bias. Judge Brinkema denies this request.\n\nFebruary 2024 \u2013 Trial Date Set\n\nThe court announces the trial will begin on Sept. 9, 2024.\n\nApril\u2013May 2024 \u2013 Pretrial Motions\n\nGoogle files for summary judgment, arguing the DOJ miscalculated its market share.\nGoogle successfully moves to strike the DOJ\u2019s jury trial demand; the trial is set to proceed before a magistrate judge.\n\nSeptember 9\u201327, 2024 \u2013 Trial\n\nThe trial opens before Judge Brinkema and concludes in three weeks.\nDOJ presents evidence that Google used acquisitions (notably DoubleClick and AdMeld) and integration strategies to dominate the AdTech market, locking in customers and disadvantaging rivals.\nWitnesses testify about Google\u2019s practices, including preferential treatment for its own ad exchange and restrictive policies that harmed publishers and competitors.\n\nNovember 25, 2024 \u2013 Closing Arguments\n\nBoth sides deliver closing arguments, with DOJ emphasizing Google\u2019s anticompetitive conduct and Google defending its business practices as innovative and responsive to competition.\n\nApril 17, 2025 \u2013 Judge\u2019s Ruling\n\nJudge Brinkema rules that Google illegally acquired and maintained monopoly power in two key AdTech markets: the publisher ad server market and the ad exchange market for open-web display advertising.\nThe court finds that Google\u2019s contractual and technological integration of its publisher ad server and ad exchange enabled it to entrench its monopoly, harm competition, and disadvantage publishers and consumers.\nBrinkema schedules a future hearing to determine remedies, with the DOJ seeking divestiture of Google\u2019s AdTech businesses, especially Google Ad Manager.\n\nThe post Key Dates in Google\u2019s AdTech Monopoly Case From Filing to Federal Ruling appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-04-17T13:58:12-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-17T14:44:30-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Google-AdTech-monopoly-case.png", "tags": [ "AdTech", "advertising", "advertising technology", "ANTITRUST", "Big Tech", "Department of Justice", "digital transformation", "DoJ", "Google", "Lawsuits", "legal", "monopolies", "News", "online advertising", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "Sherman Antitrust Act", "Technology", "U.S. Department of Justice" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2684340", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/metas-landmark-antitrust-trial-opens-with-focus-on-2020-election/", "title": "Meta\u2019s Landmark Antitrust Trial Opens With Focus on 2020 Election", "content_html": "The Federal Trade Commission began laying out its landmark antitrust case against Meta Platforms in federal district court in Washington Monday (April 14), with FTC attorney Daniel Matheson telling the judge Meta \u201cdecided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,\u201d according to reports from inside the courtroom.
\n\u201cFor more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed,\u201d Matheson said in his opening statement. \u201cThe reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.\u201d
\nThe FTC is seeking to force Meta to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which the commission originally had approved in 2012 and 2014, respectively. In a blog post Sunday, Meta called the case \u201cweak\u201d and accused the agency of engaging in \u201can unprecedented exercise in revisionist history,\u201d that \u201csends the message that no deal is ever final, and that businesses operating in America will be punished for innovating.\u201d
\nIn an appearance on Fox Business Monday morning, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson pushed back on that criticism, saying the antitrust watchdog is obligated to monitor changing market conditions.
\n\u201cThe FTC doesn\u2019t clear transactions, it tries to make predictions about whether a transaction will be anticompetitive,\u201d he told host Maria Bartiromo. \u201cHere we have actual evidence that the transactions turned out to be anticompetitive.\u201d
\nDespite Meta\u2019s emphasis on the decade that passed since the deals were approved, Ferguson focused his comments on 2020, when the case was originally brought. The FTC began investigating Meta prior to the 2020 election and filed the lawsuit in December of that year, in the final weeks of the first Donald Trump administration. At the time, Trump and his supporters were disputing his loss to Joe Biden, and Meta, then Facebook, was among the social media platforms the outgoing president accused of suppressing conservative voices and manipulating the election.
\nThe acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp gave Meta \u201ca tremendous amount of power,\u201d Ferguson said. \u201cWe\u2019re addressing the power of Meta and making sure the situation we had in 2020 will never again arise.\u201d
\nFacebook officials have lobbied the FTC and other centers of power in Washington intensively to try to settle the case before trial or get it dismissed altogether.
\nAccording to a report Monday in Semafor, however, Ferguson, along with Justice Department Antitrust Division head Gail Slater and former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Mike Davis, whether with the president in the Oval Office last week to \u201cstiffen Trump\u2019s spine against a relentless wave of lobbying from Meta.\u201d
\nZuckerberg is expected to be among the first witnesses called in the trial and could take the stand as early as Monday afternoon. Also scheduled to testify are former Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Instagram Co-founder Kevin Systrom.
\n\u201cWe certainly think [Meta\u2019s] a monopoly, Ferguson said. \u201cWe\u2019re making sure that 2020 can never happen again.\u201d
\nThe post Meta\u2019s Landmark Antitrust Trial Opens With Focus on 2020 Election appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "The Federal Trade Commission began laying out its landmark antitrust case against Meta Platforms in federal district court in Washington Monday (April 14), with FTC attorney Daniel Matheson telling the judge Meta \u201cdecided that competition was too hard and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,\u201d according to reports from inside the courtroom.\n\u201cFor more than 100 years, American public policy has insisted firms must compete if they want to succeed,\u201d Matheson said in his opening statement. \u201cThe reason we are here is that Meta broke the deal.\u201d\nThe FTC is seeking to force Meta to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, which the commission originally had approved in 2012 and 2014, respectively. In a blog post Sunday, Meta called the case \u201cweak\u201d and accused the agency of engaging in \u201can unprecedented exercise in revisionist history,\u201d that \u201csends the message that no deal is ever final, and that businesses operating in America will be punished for innovating.\u201d\nIn an appearance on Fox Business Monday morning, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson pushed back on that criticism, saying the antitrust watchdog is obligated to monitor changing market conditions.\n\u201cThe FTC doesn\u2019t clear transactions, it tries to make predictions about whether a transaction will be anticompetitive,\u201d he told host Maria Bartiromo. \u201cHere we have actual evidence that the transactions turned out to be anticompetitive.\u201d\nDespite Meta\u2019s emphasis on the decade that passed since the deals were approved, Ferguson focused his comments on 2020, when the case was originally brought. The FTC began investigating Meta prior to the 2020 election and filed the lawsuit in December of that year, in the final weeks of the first Donald Trump administration. At the time, Trump and his supporters were disputing his loss to Joe Biden, and Meta, then Facebook, was among the social media platforms the outgoing president accused of suppressing conservative voices and manipulating the election.\nThe acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp gave Meta \u201ca tremendous amount of power,\u201d Ferguson said. \u201cWe\u2019re addressing the power of Meta and making sure the situation we had in 2020 will never again arise.\u201d\nFacebook officials have lobbied the FTC and other centers of power in Washington intensively to try to settle the case before trial or get it dismissed altogether.\nAccording to a report Monday in Semafor, however, Ferguson, along with Justice Department Antitrust Division head Gail Slater and former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Mike Davis, whether with the president in the Oval Office last week to \u201cstiffen Trump\u2019s spine against a relentless wave of lobbying from Meta.\u201d\nZuckerberg is expected to be among the first witnesses called in the trial and could take the stand as early as Monday afternoon. Also scheduled to testify are former Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Instagram Co-founder Kevin Systrom.\n\u201cWe certainly think [Meta\u2019s] a monopoly, Ferguson said. \u201cWe\u2019re making sure that 2020 can never happen again.\u201d\nThe post Meta\u2019s Landmark Antitrust Trial Opens With Focus on 2020 Election appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-04-14T17:28:37-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-04-14T17:28:37-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Meta-FTC-antitrust-lawsuit.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "elections", "Facebook", "Federal Trade Commission", "FTC", "Instagram", "Lawsuits", "Meta", "News", "PYMNTS News", "Social Media", "WhatsApp" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2511139", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/report-ftc-to-continue-biden-administrations-antitrust-probe-of-microsoft/", "title": "Report: FTC to Continue Biden Administration\u2019s Antitrust Probe of Microsoft", "content_html": "An antitrust probe of Microsoft that was launched in the last days of the Biden administration will reportedly continue under the Trump administration.
\nFederal Trade Commission (FTC) staff have continued gathering information for the investigation, Bloomberg reported Wednesday (March 12), citing unnamed sources.
\nReached by PYMNTS, the FTC declined to comment on the report.
\nMicrosoft did not immediately reply to PYMNTS\u2019 request for comment.
\nAccording to the Bloomberg report, the FTC sent Microsoft a civil investigative demand late last year demanding information about the company\u2019s artificial intelligence (AI) operations, data centers, software licensing practices and decision to cut funding on its own AI projects after making a deal with OpenAI.
\nOne company that was asked for information as part of the investigation told Bloomberg that the FTC wants to determine whether Microsoft has an edge over other AI companies because of the profits it earns from other parts of the business, per the report.
\nThe FTC\u2019s questions about the company\u2019s software licensing practices may relate to competitors\u2019 complaints about Microsoft bundling its office productivity, security software and cloud offerings, which makes it harder for them to compete, according to the report.
\nMicrosoft\u2019s decision to cancel some of its own work on AI after investing in OpenAI and using that company\u2019s software is also under scrutiny by the FTC because that move may have reduced competition in the field, per the report.
\nWide-ranging antitrust investigations like the one targeting Microsoft can take years and don\u2019t always result in a case brought by the FTC, the report said.
\nMicrosoft spokesmen Alex Haurek said in the report: \u201cWe are working cooperatively with the agency.\u201d
\nIt was reported in November that the FTC was set to investigate allegedly anticompetitive practices at Microsoft\u2019s cloud computing business, focusing on allegations that the tech giant illegally uses the market power of its Office 365 productivity software to benefit its Azure cloud service.
\nIn December, it was reported that Microsoft formally requested an investigation into the FTC after reports surfaced that details of the antitrust investigation were leaked. The company asked the regulator\u2019s inspector general to examine whether senior management at the agency disclosed nonpublic information about the probe.
\nThe post Report: FTC to Continue Biden Administration\u2019s Antitrust Probe of Microsoft appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "An antitrust probe of Microsoft that was launched in the last days of the Biden administration will reportedly continue under the Trump administration.\nFederal Trade Commission (FTC) staff have continued gathering information for the investigation, Bloomberg reported Wednesday (March 12), citing unnamed sources.\nReached by PYMNTS, the FTC declined to comment on the report.\nMicrosoft did not immediately reply to PYMNTS\u2019 request for comment.\nAccording to the Bloomberg report, the FTC sent Microsoft a civil investigative demand late last year demanding information about the company\u2019s artificial intelligence (AI) operations, data centers, software licensing practices and decision to cut funding on its own AI projects after making a deal with OpenAI.\nOne company that was asked for information as part of the investigation told Bloomberg that the FTC wants to determine whether Microsoft has an edge over other AI companies because of the profits it earns from other parts of the business, per the report.\nThe FTC\u2019s questions about the company\u2019s software licensing practices may relate to competitors\u2019 complaints about Microsoft bundling its office productivity, security software and cloud offerings, which makes it harder for them to compete, according to the report.\nMicrosoft\u2019s decision to cancel some of its own work on AI after investing in OpenAI and using that company\u2019s software is also under scrutiny by the FTC because that move may have reduced competition in the field, per the report.\nWide-ranging antitrust investigations like the one targeting Microsoft can take years and don\u2019t always result in a case brought by the FTC, the report said.\nMicrosoft spokesmen Alex Haurek said in the report: \u201cWe are working cooperatively with the agency.\u201d\nIt was reported in November that the FTC was set to investigate allegedly anticompetitive practices at Microsoft\u2019s cloud computing business, focusing on allegations that the tech giant illegally uses the market power of its Office 365 productivity software to benefit its Azure cloud service.\nIn December, it was reported that Microsoft formally requested an investigation into the FTC after reports surfaced that details of the antitrust investigation were leaked. The company asked the regulator\u2019s inspector general to examine whether senior management at the agency disclosed nonpublic information about the probe.\nThe post Report: FTC to Continue Biden Administration\u2019s Antitrust Probe of Microsoft appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-03-12T21:14:27-04:00", "date_modified": "2025-03-13T10:09:26-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/FTC-Microsoft-AI.jpg", "tags": [ "AI", "Anticompetitive", "ANTITRUST", "artificial intelligence", "Federal Trade Commission", "FTC", "Microsoft", "News", "OpenAI", "PYMNTS News", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2507541", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/european-union-seeks-united-states-help-policing-dominant-digital-platforms/", "title": "EU Seeks US Help in Policing \u2018Dominant Digital Platforms\u2019", "content_html": "European Union lawmakers are reportedly countering accusations that they are treating tech giants in the United States unfairly.
\nEU lawmakers wrote to U.S. officials saying claims that the EU is using its digital competition laws to unfairly punish American companies are unfounded, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday (March 6).
\n\u201cGiven the importance of our shared values in promoting fair competition and innovation, it is essential that we align our efforts to address the challenges posed by dominant digital platforms,\u201d the lawmakers\u2019 letter said, per the report.
\nIt was signed by nine members of the European Parliament and sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the report said.
\nThe letter said the EU\u2019s Digital Markets Act (DMA) \u2014 the basis for investigations into Apple, Google and Meta \u2014 does not only target American companies, per the report. For example, the lawmakers said Dutch Booking.com and China\u2019s TikTok have also been examined under the act.
\nThe lawmakers also argued that many U.S. companies hope to benefit from the regulations and have campaigned for the EU to enforce the DMA, according to the report.
\nFor example, streaming companies like Netflix, \u201ccurrently burdened by Apple\u2019s and Google\u2019s high app store fees, would also benefit from a fairer competitive landscape under the DMA,\u201d EU lawmakers said, per the report, adding that thousands of American startups would see new revenues from the EU if tech giants would obey the law.
\nThe letter came a little more than a week after a similar correspondence from U.S. lawmakers to European regulators regarding the DMA. Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin said the DMA places unfair burdens on U.S. companies and favors European tech firms. The letter also criticized the 10% fines on global yearly revenues companies are subject to under the DMA.
\n\u201cThese severe fines appear to have two goals: to compel businesses to follow European standards worldwide and as a European tax on American companies,\u201d the letter said.
\nA European Commission spokesperson told PYMNTS in response to the letter from Jordan and Fitzgerald: \u201cThe Digital Markets Act applies equally to all large digital actors operating in the EU single market, irrespective of their place of incorporation or of their controlling shareholders, to ensure a safe, fair and level-playing field in the EU.\u201d
\nThe post EU Seeks US Help in Policing \u2018Dominant Digital Platforms\u2019 appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "European Union lawmakers are reportedly countering accusations that they are treating tech giants in the United States unfairly.\nEU lawmakers wrote to U.S. officials saying claims that the EU is using its digital competition laws to unfairly punish American companies are unfounded, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday (March 6).\n\u201cGiven the importance of our shared values in promoting fair competition and innovation, it is essential that we align our efforts to address the challenges posed by dominant digital platforms,\u201d the lawmakers\u2019 letter said, per the report.\nIt was signed by nine members of the European Parliament and sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the report said.\nThe letter said the EU\u2019s Digital Markets Act (DMA) \u2014 the basis for investigations into Apple, Google and Meta \u2014 does not only target American companies, per the report. For example, the lawmakers said Dutch Booking.com and China\u2019s TikTok have also been examined under the act.\nThe lawmakers also argued that many U.S. companies hope to benefit from the regulations and have campaigned for the EU to enforce the DMA, according to the report.\nFor example, streaming companies like Netflix, \u201ccurrently burdened by Apple\u2019s and Google\u2019s high app store fees, would also benefit from a fairer competitive landscape under the DMA,\u201d EU lawmakers said, per the report, adding that thousands of American startups would see new revenues from the EU if tech giants would obey the law.\nThe letter came a little more than a week after a similar correspondence from U.S. lawmakers to European regulators regarding the DMA. Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin said the DMA places unfair burdens on U.S. companies and favors European tech firms. The letter also criticized the 10% fines on global yearly revenues companies are subject to under the DMA.\n\u201cThese severe fines appear to have two goals: to compel businesses to follow European standards worldwide and as a European tax on American companies,\u201d the letter said.\nA European Commission spokesperson told PYMNTS in response to the letter from Jordan and Fitzgerald: \u201cThe Digital Markets Act applies equally to all large digital actors operating in the EU single market, irrespective of their place of incorporation or of their controlling shareholders, to ensure a safe, fair and level-playing field in the EU.\u201d\nThe post EU Seeks US Help in Policing \u2018Dominant Digital Platforms\u2019 appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-03-06T12:29:35-05:00", "date_modified": "2025-03-06T12:29:35-05:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/European-Union-EU.jpg", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "Big Tech", "Digital Markets Act", "EU", "international", "News", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "Technology", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2507417", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/visa-mastercard-accused-card-monopoly-united-kingdom-payment-systems-regulator/", "title": "Visa and Mastercard Accused of Card Monopoly by UK Watchdog", "content_html": "Visa and Mastercard face regulatory action in the United Kingdom following a payments watchdog\u2019s investigation.
\nThe Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) is considering \u201cremedies\u201d for the two companies after uncovering a lack of competition in the card payment market, according to a Thursday (March 6) press release.
\n\u201cCards are a popular and convenient way to make payments in the U.K., so any issues in the card market can have a negative impact on \u2026 businesses and ultimately consumers,\u201d PSR Managing Director David Geale said in the release. \u201cWe have found that there is a lack of competition in the market and evidence that Mastercard and Visa might have been able to charge U.K. businesses millions of pounds more than they would in a properly competitive market, impacting on their ability to invest and grow.\u201d
\nThe findings showed that Visa and Mastercard face \u201cineffective competitive constraints\u201d in supplying scheme and processing services to acquirers and merchants, the release said. Fees have jumped by at least 25% since 2017, costing U.K. businesses at least an extra 170 million pounds (about $219 million) per year.
\nThe companies have not offered \u201csufficiently clear and detailed information\u201d on fees, leading to worsening outcomes for merchants and acquirers, especially in terms of raising their costs, per the release.
\n\u201cThey then have little choice but to either pass these increased costs onto consumers or incur the costs themselves, impacting their ability to invest,\u201d the release said.
\nMastercard emailed the following statement to PYMNTS:
\n\u201cWe disagree with the findings in today\u2019s report, which continues to underplay the true competitiveness of the payment industry and our ongoing innovation and investment into security and the consumer experience. Our resilient, global network provides peace of mind and strong consumer protections, preventing billions of pounds of fraud each year. We will continue to work transparently with our customers and demonstrate to the PSR the significant value Mastercard and electronic payments bring to people and businesses across the UK.\u201d
\nReached for comment by PYMNTS, a Visa spokesperson said the company\u2019s fees reflect the \u201cimmense value\u201d the company provides merchants, consumers and financial institutions.
\n\u201cThis includes extremely high levels of security and fraud prevention, near-perfect operational resilience and reliability, and a wide range of consumer protections and high-quality products and services that serve consumer and merchant needs,\u201d the company said. \u201cThrough our investments, the U.K. has been a global pioneer in payments technology.\u201d
\nThe PSR\u2019s action came as Mastercard\u2019s and Visa\u2019s place in the marketplace is being called into question elsewhere.
\nFor example, November brought a report that the European Commission was investigating whether the companies\u2019 \u201cscheme fees\u201d were harming retailers.
\nAlso in November, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing on Visa\u2019s and Mastercard\u2019s fees, with Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, then-chair of the committee, accusing the companies of having a \u201cstranglehold\u201d on the credit card market.
\nThe post Visa and Mastercard Accused of Card Monopoly by UK Watchdog appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "Visa and Mastercard face regulatory action in the United Kingdom following a payments watchdog\u2019s investigation.\nThe Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) is considering \u201cremedies\u201d for the two companies after uncovering a lack of competition in the card payment market, according to a Thursday (March 6) press release.\n\u201cCards are a popular and convenient way to make payments in the U.K., so any issues in the card market can have a negative impact on \u2026 businesses and ultimately consumers,\u201d PSR Managing Director David Geale said in the release. \u201cWe have found that there is a lack of competition in the market and evidence that Mastercard and Visa might have been able to charge U.K. businesses millions of pounds more than they would in a properly competitive market, impacting on their ability to invest and grow.\u201d\nThe findings showed that Visa and Mastercard face \u201cineffective competitive constraints\u201d in supplying scheme and processing services to acquirers and merchants, the release said. Fees have jumped by at least 25% since 2017, costing U.K. businesses at least an extra 170 million pounds (about $219 million) per year.\nThe companies have not offered \u201csufficiently clear and detailed information\u201d on fees, leading to worsening outcomes for merchants and acquirers, especially in terms of raising their costs, per the release.\n\u201cThey then have little choice but to either pass these increased costs onto consumers or incur the costs themselves, impacting their ability to invest,\u201d the release said.\nMastercard emailed the following statement to PYMNTS:\n\u201cWe disagree with the findings in today\u2019s report, which continues to underplay the true competitiveness of the payment industry and our ongoing innovation and investment into security and the consumer experience. Our resilient, global network provides peace of mind and strong consumer protections, preventing billions of pounds of fraud each year. We will continue to work transparently with our customers and demonstrate to the PSR the significant value Mastercard and electronic payments bring to people and businesses across the UK.\u201d\nReached for comment by PYMNTS, a Visa spokesperson said the company\u2019s fees reflect the \u201cimmense value\u201d the company provides merchants, consumers and financial institutions.\n\u201cThis includes extremely high levels of security and fraud prevention, near-perfect operational resilience and reliability, and a wide range of consumer protections and high-quality products and services that serve consumer and merchant needs,\u201d the company said. \u201cThrough our investments, the U.K. has been a global pioneer in payments technology.\u201d\nThe PSR\u2019s action came as Mastercard\u2019s and Visa\u2019s place in the marketplace is being called into question elsewhere.\nFor example, November brought a report that the European Commission was investigating whether the companies\u2019 \u201cscheme fees\u201d were harming retailers.\nAlso in November, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing on Visa\u2019s and Mastercard\u2019s fees, with Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, then-chair of the committee, accusing the companies of having a \u201cstranglehold\u201d on the credit card market.\nThe post Visa and Mastercard Accused of Card Monopoly by UK Watchdog appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-03-06T09:41:21-05:00", "date_modified": "2025-03-07T11:20:13-05:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Mastercard-Visa.png", "tags": [ "ANTITRUST", "credit", "credit cards", "international", "junk fees", "MasterCard", "News", "Payment Systems Regulator", "PYMNTS News", "regulation", "uk", "Visa", "What's Hot" ] }, { "id": "https://www.pymnts.com/?p=2489375", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/antitrust/2025/uks-cma-gives-provisional-approval-to-amex-gbt-acquisition-of-cwt/", "title": "UK\u2019s CMA Gives Provisional Approval to Amex GBT Acquisition of CWT", "content_html": "American Express Global Business Travel, which is operated by Global Business Travel Group (GBT), said Tuesday (Feb. 18) that updated provisional conclusions announced by the U.K.\u2019s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) support the company\u2019s position as it defends itself against an antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
\nThe CMA said in a Tuesday press release that it provisionally considers that GBT\u2019s proposed merger with corporate travel management company CWT Holdings should be allowed to proceed.
\nAfter saying in an earlier interim report on its merger inquiry published in November that the proposed merger was likely to lessen competition, the CMA said in a supplementary interim report published Tuesday that CWT is a weaker competitor than it has been in the past and that other suppliers can offer customers an alternative to the merged business.
\n\u201cIn this case, having considered all of the evidence in the round, particularly the further analysis of CWT\u2019s financial position, we have now provisionally concluded that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in corporate travel management services,\u201d Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting the investigation, said in the release.
\nThe CMA will now accept comments until Feb. 25 and then make a final decision on March 9, according to the release.
\nNoting the CMA\u2019s announcement in a Tuesday press release, GBT Chief Legal Officer and Global Head of M&A Eric J. Bock said the updated provisional conclusions mark \u201can important milestone toward the consummation of the transaction.\u201d
\n\u201cThe CMA\u2019s revised findings reinforce the company\u2019s belief that the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit is fundamentally flawed, taking a narrow and outdated view of competition, and disregarding the emergence of numerous significant competitors in business travel,\u201d Bock said.
\nThe DOJ filed a lawsuit to prevent the merger in January, citing concerns over reduced competition in the travel management sector.
\n\u201cIf completed, this deal would extinguish fierce head-to-head competition between Amex GBT and CWT and risk higher prices, fewer choices and less innovation,\u201d the DOJ said in its complaint.
\nWhen announcing its planned acquisition of CWT in March, Amex GBT said it would offer CWT\u2019s 4,000 customers access to the Amex GBT ecosystem.
\n\u201cBringing CWT onto the proven Amex GBT software and services model will create more choice for customers, more opportunities for people and more value for shareholders,\u201d Amex GBT CEO Phil Abbott said at the time in a press release.
\nThe post UK\u2019s CMA Gives Provisional Approval to Amex GBT Acquisition of CWT appeared first on PYMNTS.com.
\n", "content_text": "American Express Global Business Travel, which is operated by Global Business Travel Group (GBT), said Tuesday (Feb. 18) that updated provisional conclusions announced by the U.K.\u2019s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) support the company\u2019s position as it defends itself against an antitrust case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).\nThe CMA said in a Tuesday press release that it provisionally considers that GBT\u2019s proposed merger with corporate travel management company CWT Holdings should be allowed to proceed.\nAfter saying in an earlier interim report on its merger inquiry published in November that the proposed merger was likely to lessen competition, the CMA said in a supplementary interim report published Tuesday that CWT is a weaker competitor than it has been in the past and that other suppliers can offer customers an alternative to the merged business.\n\u201cIn this case, having considered all of the evidence in the round, particularly the further analysis of CWT\u2019s financial position, we have now provisionally concluded that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in corporate travel management services,\u201d Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting the investigation, said in the release.\nThe CMA will now accept comments until Feb. 25 and then make a final decision on March 9, according to the release.\nNoting the CMA\u2019s announcement in a Tuesday press release, GBT Chief Legal Officer and Global Head of M&A Eric J. Bock said the updated provisional conclusions mark \u201can important milestone toward the consummation of the transaction.\u201d\n\u201cThe CMA\u2019s revised findings reinforce the company\u2019s belief that the DOJ\u2019s lawsuit is fundamentally flawed, taking a narrow and outdated view of competition, and disregarding the emergence of numerous significant competitors in business travel,\u201d Bock said.\nThe DOJ filed a lawsuit to prevent the merger in January, citing concerns over reduced competition in the travel management sector.\n\u201cIf completed, this deal would extinguish fierce head-to-head competition between Amex GBT and CWT and risk higher prices, fewer choices and less innovation,\u201d the DOJ said in its complaint.\nWhen announcing its planned acquisition of CWT in March, Amex GBT said it would offer CWT\u2019s 4,000 customers access to the Amex GBT ecosystem.\n\u201cBringing CWT onto the proven Amex GBT software and services model will create more choice for customers, more opportunities for people and more value for shareholders,\u201d Amex GBT CEO Phil Abbott said at the time in a press release.\nThe post UK\u2019s CMA Gives Provisional Approval to Amex GBT Acquisition of CWT appeared first on PYMNTS.com.", "date_published": "2025-02-18T13:25:09-05:00", "date_modified": "2025-02-18T13:25:09-05:00", "authors": [ { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" } ], "author": { "name": "PYMNTS", "url": "https://www.pymnts.com/author/pymnts/", "avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/679fcf5c2ed5358e99e8e23b22e3b5d761e37bdb76fa7b0e13d8ecd9ff01bf88?s=512&d=blank&r=g" }, "image": "https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CMA-Amex-GBT-CWT.png", "tags": [ "acquisitions", "American Express", "American Express Global Business Travel", "Amex", "ANTITRUST", "cma", "Competition and Markets Authority", "Department of Justice", "Lawsuits", "mergers", "News", "PYMNTS News", "regulations", "What's Hot" ] } ] }