The three-week hearing will begin next week, and Alphabet Inc. Class C (GOOGL.US) antitrust case has entered a critical stage.

Within less than a year, two federal judges have ruled that Alphabet Inc. Class C, a subsidiary of Alphabet (GOOGL.US), illegally monopolized key areas of the internet. The platform is currently embroiled in monopoly disputes in both the network advertising technology and network search business sectors. On Thursday, a federal judge in the United States ruled that Alphabet Inc. Class C violated antitrust laws in the online digital advertising market. Now, the U.S. Department of Justice is likely to push for significant reforms in Alphabet Inc. Class C's advertising business. These reforms may include forcing Alphabet Inc. Class C to sell key technologies, such as the advertising exchange platform used to match advertisers and publishers, in order to weaken Alphabet Inc. Class C's control over the profit model of independent online publishers. In another case involving search engines, Alphabet Inc. Class C may also have to sell its Chrome browser. These two cases run parallel but are independent of each other, posing a series of difficult challenges for the U.S. government on how to develop appropriate remedies. After all, this means comprehensive reform of multiple business sectors of one of the world's largest tech companies, a process that could take months or even years to complete. Rebecca Allensworth, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, stated, "I believe this situation is unprecedented, as large breakup cases in the past were decided by the same judge." Next week's hearing Although a ruling on Thursday determined that Alphabet Inc. Class C illegally monopolized the key area of internet advertising technology, the specific timeline for the next steps is still uncertain. However, a three-week hearing starting next week will discuss possible remedies regarding the ruling last year on Alphabet Inc. Class C's monopoly in the internet search market. The judge who made the ruling last year, Washington D.C. federal judge Amit Mehta, had hinted that a decision on remedies was expected before August. Allensworth believes this may influence the approach taken by the regional judge Leonie Brinkema to develop a solution for Alphabet Inc. Class C based on the ruling this week. She pointed out, "Judge Mehta may not be bound by precedents when devising a solution, but Judge Brinkema may be." In response to Thursday's ruling, Alphabet Inc. Class C stated they will appeal the part of the ruling where they lost. Lee-Anne Malholand, VP of Regulatory Affairs at Alphabet Inc. Class C, said, "We disagree with the court's ruling on Alphabet Inc. Class C's publisher tools. Publishers have many choices, they choose Alphabet Inc. Class C because our advertising technology tools are easy to operate, cost-effective, and effective." "Monopoly power" A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comments on the remedy procedures, but Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater emphasized on Thursday, "Alphabet Inc. Class C is a monopoly and has abused its monopoly power." Alphabet Inc. Class C may still attempt to reach settlements in these two cases, but given the recent victories of the Department of Justice, Alphabet Inc. Class C would likely have to meet very stringent conditions for a settlement. In March of this year, Alphabet Inc. Class C met with the Department of Justice in an attempt to avoid the breakup of its search engine business, but ultimately did not succeed. Since the Department of Justice does not have the power to impose fines in civil antitrust cases, Alphabet Inc. Class C cannot solve its monopoly issues by paying hefty fines. Therefore, any solution or settlement agreement will inevitably involve significant adjustments to its business. Brinkema will schedule a series of hearings for both sides to fully present what remedies should be taken before making a final ruling. In Thursday's ruling, she pointed out that Alphabet Inc. Class C monopolized the advertising exchange platform and the market for tools used by websites to sell ad space (ad servers). However, she also stated that Alphabet Inc. Class C does not constitute a monopoly in the market area where advertisers purchase tools to display ads. Chrome browser Next week, the Department of Justice will face off with this search engine giant in Mehta's court to discuss what necessary adjustments Alphabet Inc. Class C's business needs to make to restore market competition. The government hopes that Alphabet Inc. Class C will sell the Chrome browser, authorize search data to competitors, and prohibit it from exclusive partnerships to acquire other services and devices through payment. Mehta previously ruled that Alphabet Inc. Class C hindered competitors from succeeding in the market by making its search engine the default option on smartphones and web browsers by paying large fees to companies like Apple Inc. In November of last year, Alphabet Inc. Class C called the Department of Justice's proposed remedies a "radical interventionist agenda that will harm the interests of the American people and weaken America's global leadership in the technology sector." Those familiar with the Department of Justice's thinking reveal that while the Department of Justice will not treat these two cases in isolation, it still believes they can be dealt with separately. "At an abstract level" These two cases involve different business sectors of Alphabet Inc. Class C, requiring highly specialized remedies. Allensworth stated, "At an abstract level, breaking up Alphabet Inc. Class C is not realistic.""traduzca al ingls:"In advertising technology cases, both parties will submit a rectification plan based on the arbitration results. In early 2023, the Department of Justice clearly requested Alphabet Inc. Class C to sell its "ad management suite", including DFP publishing server, AdX advertising exchange platform, and other structural adjustment measures necessary to eliminate anti-competitive harm. However, Judge Brinkema's final decision may complicate the situation. In the ruling, she pointed out, "Alphabet Inc. Class C strengthened its business targeting publishers by acquiring DoubleClick, which helped it dominate both ends of the advertising technology industry chain." But she also ruled, "The government failed to prove that the acquisitions of DoubleClick and Admeld involved anti-competitive conduct." Nevertheless, Ellenworth believes that even so, these acquisitions can still be undone. She explained, "Judge Brinkema believes that the problematic business practices stem from vertical integration." She was referring to Alphabet Inc. Class C's synergistic operating model across different business sectors. Although splitting the business may have a significant impact on Alphabet Inc. Class C's profits, substantial changes are unlikely to occur in the short term considering the expected years of appeal processes. Analyst Dan Morgan of Cenovis Corporation pointed out, "Splitting Alphabet Inc. Class C's ad revenue acquisition business model will harm its overall business model. Don't expect any changes until the appeal cases are resolved and the dust settles."