U.S. Demands Google's Data Sharing Amid Yahoo Japan Deal

(Romero.my.id) -- In an effort to address Google’s ongoing illegal dominance in online search, U.S. antitrust regulators have revisited a pact made 15 years ago. They now contend that Alphabet Inc.'s subsidiary should once more provide data to external entities as part of resolving these monopolistic practices.

In 2010, Google agreed to grant Yahoo Japan access to its search index data, but this arrangement was limited exclusively to Google’s Japanese-language index rather than its comprehensive global database. However, during proceedings in court last Friday, Justice Department attorney David Dahlquist pointed out that this indicated Google had previously chosen to share information with third parties willingly.

Google has been resisting the measures suggested by the U.S. to tackle its control over searches—one suggestion being the sharing of search data with competitors. The company argues that this could compromise user privacy and jeopardize its intellectual property.

The Yahoo agreement was reconsidered during a three-week test period aimed at deciding how Google can reinstate fair competition in online searches following U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s decision earlier stating that the company had unfairly preserved its dominance in this sector. In another antitrust lawsuit overseen by a distinct judge, federal authorities requested on Friday that Google must divest significant components of its ad-tech business to comply with a verdict finding it guilty of unlawfully controlling large portions of the internet advertisement placement industry.

The government is urging Google to separate from its Chrome browser, share certain search data with rival companies, and cease offering payments for prominent placement within other applications and gadgets. In response, Google argues that these suggestions put forth by the government are overly drastic, asserting that such measures could negatively impact American consumers and economic growth, along with diminishing U.S. tech dominance.

The document outlining the Yahoo agreement was introduced during the cross-examination of Jesse Adkins, a Google manager responsible for search syndication products. He managed this pact’s execution over several years. This arrangement required Google to provide document identifiers, web addresses, along with different metrics such as site popularity and spam assessments.

"You understand, Mr. Adkins, that the Yahoo Japan accord essentially forms the basis for the plaintiffs' data-sharing solution in this way?" Dahlquist queried as he guided Adkins through the various aspects of the agreement during the trial.

“ I’ll trust what you say,” Adkins replied.

Google has maintained an association with Yahoo Japan—a platform distinct from the U.S.-based Yahoo search engine—to furnish it with search outcomes and certain back-end operations linked to search advertisements. When questioned, Google’s legal representative aimed to elucidate that the corporation consented to grant parts of its Japanese-language search database exclusively so that Yahoo Japan could evaluate the caliber of Google’s search outputs and offer insights to improve them.

Adkins further stated that Yahoo Japan required the information provided by Google to ensure compliance with regional regulations, such as correctly categorizing adult-oriented sites. According to Adkins, this arrangement developed gradually; subsequently, Google began offeringYahoo Japan a narrower range of data in real-time instead of periodic large-scale transfers.

The following witness called by Google was Eric Muhlheim, Mozilla's Chief Financial Officer, who spoke about the significance of their collaboration with the tech behemoth for sustaining their business strategy. According to his testimony, last year, Mozilla—which develops the widely used Firefox web browser—generated total revenues amounting to $570 million. Out of this sum, approximately 85% originated from payments made by Google, attributed to securing a prominent placement within the Firefox browser interface.

Muhlheim stated that in the near future,Mozilla’s income within the U.S. would significantly decrease if the organization had to change providers for Firefox’s default search engine and consequently stopped receiving payments from Google through their long-term revenue-sharing arrangement.

"The resulting gap in our income would necessitate substantial budget reductions throughout the organization," Muhlheim stated. Additionally, this solution would reduce the funds available for investing in their proprietary software, making the firm less competitive," he noted.

He warned that it might "trigger a decline in user adoption as individuals switch away from the browser, potentially leading toFirefox’s demise in the long run."

If Google was prohibited from paying for premium placement on Mozilla’s Firefox browser, Muhlheim stated, the company would seek out alternative options. "However, we'd face significant challenges in the interim," he noted.

Last year, according to Muhlheim, the firm looked into various alternatives, such as talks with Microsoft Corp. regarding their Bing web browser potentially replacing Mozilla’s default search engine like Firefox does for Mozilla. However, after evaluation, Mozilla concluded that Bing would not generate as much revenue as Google.

Muhlheim suggested that he believed Microsoft might gradually decrease the portion of revenue shared with Mozilla if it became the sole prominent rival for securing the search engine browser position.

Towards the conclusion of Muhlheim’s testimony, Mehta questioned whether Mozilla would prosper with "at least one additional rival" alongside Google, provided they offered comparable quality of service for the search engine position within the Firefox browser. Muhlheim agreed, stating that such a scenario would create a more favorable environment for Mozilla.

Mehta questioned whether the current market conditions could lead to the desired result in either the near future or the distant one.

In certain aspects, it's challenging to determine, as AI is increasingly prevalent," Muhlheim replied. "One might envision that the level of funding and how individuals operate within AI" could lead to such a scenario. "Therefore, I believe it's not implausible.