This is not that case. This case is about how Google only serves certain ad inventory to people who use their products.

Then what is the definition of a monopoly? It doesn’t appear to be the same definition as “the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.” Do they exclusively control all ad inventory? Do they control all devices receiving ads? GP states that they don’t have exclusive control broadly, just within their own ecosystem. That’s not the definition of a monopoly though, so it seems like a motte and bailey calling google a monopoly.

	▲	ThatPlayer 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		The courts don't use "monopoly", they use the term "monopoly power": https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... Like this says, it doesn't strictly require a monopoly. It's just a term that gets simplified by journalist and articles, because no one is familiar with monopoly power. From the court filing: > Plaintiffs have proven that Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising.

▲

guywithahat 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess my argument is you can use one of the other dozen ad platforms