 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
| DOJ and NCIS Want Receipts—Google, IAS, and DV Under the Spotlight |
 |
| Ryan Barwick over at Marketing Brew hit us with the latest tea: The DOJ and NCIS have some serious questions for Google, DoubleVerify (DV), and Integral Ad Science (IAS). And no, they're not asking politely. It all started with Adalytics' reports claiming that YouTube was snooping on kids and that ads from U.S. military branches somehow landed on sanctioned Russian and Iranian websites. Now the feds are asking: Are these brand safety tools doing their job, or are they just collecting fees while shady placements run wild? DV and IAS built their brands on promises of safety and fraud prevention. But as any ad ops pro knows, fraud evolves faster than the tech meant to catch it. As noted during discussions at PubForum Boston, transparency in ad tech is still more a dream than reality. Can advertisers and agencies trust that their ad dollars are protected, especially when those verification vendors are embedded in the larger programmatic ecosystem they monitor? It's like the refs running plays on both teams—awkward. The DOJ is reportedly looking into potential conflicts of interest, questioning how much independence these vendors maintain from the platforms they audit. With $1.8 billion in federal ad spend last year, including heavy military investments, someone's gotta answer how these ads ended up in all the wrong places. This investigation lights another fire under Google. The tech giant is already in the DOJ's crosshairs for allegedly monopolizing the ad tech ecosystem. Now, the feds want to know if Google's control over YouTube's ad placements and programmatic pipes comes at the expense of accountability. Sound familiar? It's the same tune we heard before GARM collapsed — when advertisers, agencies, and platforms couldn't agree on balancing brand safety with the status quo. Without clear standards, it's the Wild West out here — and now the DOJ's riding in to clean things up. Maybe. Industry insiders are split. Some are popping popcorn, excited to see these tools get the scrutiny they've dodged for years. Others argue that expecting DV and IAS to catch every scam is like expecting the refs to see every foul — fraud and placement issues are deeply embedded in the complex programmatic ecosystem. Whether this DOJ probe leads to real change or just more finger-pointing remains to be seen, but one thing's for sure: With the feds poking around, Google, IAS, and DV aren't getting off easy this time. — LdJ |
|
 |
|
| Google Breakup Proposal: A Conscious Uncoupling or A Messy Disaster? |
As we inch closer and closer to the final arguments of the Google and DOJ case, one question lingers: if Google loses, exactly how will the DOJ break up their business? Unfortunately, I don't know if a kumbaya moment exists for Google and federal legislators. Still, depending on the final ruling, we will either have to get used to a new normal or get ready to stick to the status quo. The Reason. The ongoing antitrust case against Google has sparked a complex debate about the tech giant's future and its impact on digital media. The Department of Justice is weighing remedies for Google's market dominance, including structural changes like divestitures or behavioral solutions such as distribution limits and data-sharing mandates. These proposals aim to reduce Google's overwhelming 90% market share in online searches, create opportunities for competitors, and ensure fair competition in emerging technologies like AI-assisted search. However, implementing such measures presents significant challenges, including legal hurdles and the complexity of untangling Google's intertwined business units. The Critiques. Like any messy breakup, dismantling Google will be a long and hard process that will reshape the lives of everyone involved. The question remains: Will Google's current business structure be the one that got away, or are we dodging a bullet? Critics of the breakup approach argue that dismantling Google could have far-reaching negative consequences. They see the Big G as a leader in AI research and a cornerstone of U.S. technological competitiveness. Moreover, the company's integrated ecosystem provides tangible benefits to consumers and businesses, and a breakup could disrupt these synergies, potentially reducing product quality and user experience. Some small businesses discussed this at a Connected Commerce Press conference. For instance, food blogger Simply Lakita emphasized that Google's display ads are now her primary revenue source and that losing this revenue model would halt much of her profit. If you ask Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads, this uncoupling is for the better. She noted the focus on preventing Google from using privacy as a cover for retaining unshareable data, the including of structural remedies to limit Google’s advantage through Chrome, Android, and Play Store, and applauded the recognition of Google’s use of Pmax to protect its search monopoly. – AB |
|
|
| K-I-S-S-I-N-G Hearst and OpenAI Sitting in a Tree... |
| In the latest episode of “If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em, " Hearst cozies up to OpenAI, becoming the newest publisher to ink a deal with the generative AI giant. The partnership brings content from iconic brands like Cosmopolitan, Esquire, the Houston Chronicle, Runner’s World, and more than 20 magazines and 40 newspapers into the ChatGPT universe. ChatGPT’s 200 million weekly users have instant access to curated lifestyle and local news. Proper citations and shiny links will give readers easy access to original Hearst sources. Sounds great doesn’t it? Well, not everyone is convinced this is the path forward for publishers. If you attended Publisher Forum Austin early this year, you heard Burhan Hamid, CTO at TIME tell pubs: “If you’re not using AI today, your competitors are.” The new Hearst-OpenAI deal might unlock licensing as a revenue model, but Hamid also warned that publishers need to tread carefully with proprietary data. AI can handle the grunt work — summarization, personalization, and contextual ads — allowing publishers to focus on strategy. But how do publishers determine what to charge for accessing their archives — or allowing OpenAI to train on their data? And more importantly, can they trust that deals like these won’t lead to giving away the farm? This Hearst move is part of a bigger trend — just ask Dotdash Meredith, The Atlantic, or Vox, who all recently got into bed with OpenAI. While some see these partnerships as a ticket to future-proofing through innovation, others wonder if media companies are handing over their most valuable assets too easily. After all, OpenAI’s relationship with media has been complicated — consider their face-offs with The New York Times and Alden Global’s MediaNews Group. And just this week, The New York Times filed a cease and desist notice against AI search engine Perplexity, accusing the company of unauthorized access of their content. These lawsuits prove that trust in these collaborations is far from universal. For now, Hearst is betting big on AI as a path to innovation and relevance. But the big question remains: Is this a smart strategy, or are publishers moving too fast and giving away too much? As Burhan Hamid said, AI might just be the Robin to your Batman —but someone still needs to keep their eye on the Batcave. Whether this marriage will lead to long-term gains or regrets remains to be seen, and with so many players already on board, one thing is clear: It’s AI or bye-bye. — LdJ |
|
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
