Lemmy.World

169,110 readers
6,004 users here now

The World's Internet Frontpage Lemmy.World is a general-purpose Lemmy instance of various topics, for the entire world to use.

Be polite and follow the rules ⚖ https://legal.lemmy.world/tos

Get started

See the Getting Started Guide

Donations 💗

If you would like to make a donation to support the cost of running this platform, please do so at the following donation URLs.

If you can, please use / switch to Ko-Fi, it has the lowest fees for us

Ko-Fi (Donate)

Bunq (Donate)

Open Collective backers and sponsors

Patreon

Liberapay patrons

GitHub Sponsors

Join the team 😎

Check out our team page to join

Questions / Issues

More Lemmy.World

Follow us for server news 🐘

Mastodon Follow

Chat 🗨

Discord

Matrix

Alternative UIs

Monitoring / Stats 🌐

Service Status 🔥

https://status.lemmy.world

Mozilla HTTP Observatory Grade

Lemmy.World is part of the FediHosting Foundation

founded 2 years ago
ADMINS
1
125
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Spotlight7573 to c/technology
 
 

From the article:

Google must face a £13.6bn lawsuit alleging it has too much power over the online advertising market, a court has ruled.

The case, brought by a group called Ad Tech Collective Action LLP, alleges the search giant behaved in an anti-competitive way which caused online publishers in the UK to lose money.

And the actual case at the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal:

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15727722-15827723-ad-tech-collective-action-llp

The claims by Ad Tech Collective Action LLP are for loss and damage allegedly caused by the Proposed Defendants’ breach of statutory duty by their infringement of section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The PCR seeks to recover damages to compensate UK-domiciled publishers and publisher partners, for alleged harm in the form of lower revenues caused by the Proposed Defendants' conduct in the ad tech sector.

2
 
 

The search giant's parent Alphabet called the case 'incoherent' in arguments to get the case dropped.

view more: next ›