

News Archive
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
Watchdog Suggests DOJ Break Up Google
April 21, 2010, 12:10 pmDepending on how you look at it, Google's either in a whole lot of trouble, or it's gotten a lucky break. The consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog went after the search giant again today, calling for the Department of Justice to take action, but arguably went too far by suggesting that the company be broken up.
At the beginning of a letter to several DOJ officials, Consumer Watchdog's John M. Simpson did a fair job of highlighting precedents for federal interference. He wrote, "Your department has opposed the proposed Google Books settlement and the FTC is closely examining Google's planned $750 million acquisition of the mobile advertising company AdMob."
After discussing Google's dominance in the search and advertising markets, Simpson pushed for some unusually harsh penalties, though. One idea was to have Google pay consumers significant amounts of money in return for monetizing their information. Another was regulating Google as a public utility.
Finally, there's the biggie: "break Google into different companies devoted to different lines of business."
If anyone important at the DOJ agrees with these recommendations, Google will obviously face a very tough fight. It just seems more likely that Simpson undermined his arguments (and those of other privacy groups) by requesting almost unheard-of consequences.




