SELECT LANGUAGE BELOW

FTC investigates Google and Amazon for supposedly deceiving advertisers.

FTC investigates Google and Amazon for supposedly deceiving advertisers.

Google and Amazon are currently under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to determine if they have been misleading advertisers on their platforms.

This inquiry, led by Republican Chairman Andrew Ferguson, focuses on whether these companies are clear about the pricing and terms associated with their ad services. This information comes from unnamed sources, according to a report.

For Amazon, the FTC is assessing if the company has properly informed its clients regarding the auction process and “subsid price,” which refers to the minimum cost needed to secure advertising space on their site.

On the other hand, Google is being examined for its internal ad pricing practices, particularly if it has increased costs for advertising without adequately communicating these changes to its customers.

Neither the FTC, Google, nor Amazon have commented on the ongoing investigation, which is being conducted by the FTC’s Consumer Protection Unit.

This investigation highlights the regulatory pressures both companies are facing, compounded by a federal antitrust case that is set to go to trial on September 22nd.

The FTC is also suing Amazon for allegedly signing up customers for Prime subscription services without their knowledge.

In a related matter, federal judges are contemplating remedies that might include separating Google due to its illegal monopoly in the digital advertising domain, a situation brought to light by the Department of Justice.

Earlier this month, Google managed to avoid a significant legal setback when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against additional stringent measures proposed by the DOJ, which would have required search engines to ensure they remained the default option on most smartphones.

Instead, Mehta’s decision allowed Google to provide more data to its competitors and pay companies like Apple for default status, unless the agreement was exclusive. Critics have harshly criticized this ruling as being too lenient, describing it as merely a “wrist slap” and not sufficient to foster genuine competition.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Telegram
WhatsApp

Related News