We have a good example of what a failure to regulate high technology companies for a couple of decades creates.
Kicking the can down the road has done … what, exactly?
Alexandra Dumont
Legal Technology Reporter
Project Counsel Media
6 December 2024 (New York, NY) — The United Nations has – for better or worse – a multi-stakeholder, high-level advisory board on AI to undertake analysis and advance recommendations for the international governance of AI. It’s not going to do much, but our participation on reporting on it has given us access to lots of interesting players in the AI ecosphere. At this week’s conclave there was a lot of chatter about the status of various AI-related litigations around the world. And – happy days! – there is a legal technology vendor providing advice on the procedures and processes involved. An unpaid roll, I might add, but one assumes he/she/it/they builds some contacts and referrals.
There are 193 nations which are members of the UN. There are also entities which one can count but are what one might call “special organizations”: The Holy See (aka Vatican City) and the State of Palestine. The other 193 are “recognized,” mostly pay their UN dues, and have legal systems of varying quality and diligence.
So this morning I was reading “Google Earns Fresh Competition Scrutiny from Two Nations on a Single Day.” The write-up notes:
In India – the most populous nation on Earth – the Competition Commission ordered a probe after a developer called WinZo – which promotes itself with the chance to “Play Mobile Games & Win Cash” – complained that Google Play won’t host games that offer real money as prizes, only allowing sideloading onto Android devices.
Then it added:
Advertising is the reason for the other Google probe announced Thursday, by the Competition Bureau of Canada – the world’s second-largest country by area. The Bureau announced its investigations found Google’s ads biz “abused its dominant position through conduct intended to ensure that it would maintain and entrench its market power” and “engaged in conduct that reduces the competitiveness of rival ad tech tools and the likelihood of new entrants in the market.” The Bureau thinks the situation can be addressed if Google sells two of its ads tools – but the filing in which the identity of those two products will be revealed is yet to appear on the site of the Competition Tribunal.
Whether Google is good or evil is, in my opinion, irrelevant. With the U.S. , the EU, Canada, and India chasing Google for its alleged misbehavior, other nations are going to pay attention. In fact, at this week’s UN AI get-together the feeling among several countries was “how do we get in on this action?“
So, does that mean that another 100 or more nations will launch their own investigations and initiate legal action related to the lovable Google’s approach to business? In practical terms what might this mean/does this mean?
Just three points right now. We are going to follow-up with representatives of several countries we spoke with:
1. Google will be hiring lawyers and retaining firms. This is definitely good for legal eagles, and their litigation support teams.
2. Google will win some, delay some, and lose some cases. The losses, however, will result in consequences. Some of these will require Google to write checks for penalties. These can add up.
3. Conflicting decisions are likely to result in delays. Those delays means that Google will need be more Googley, when the $$$ pressure is on. So the number of ads in YouTube will increase. The mysterious revenue payments will become more quirky. Commissions on various user-customer-Google touch points will increase. Google can be a magical place.
Bottom line? The new year might see an uptick in Googley litigations. But we have, yet again, a good example of what a failure to regulate high technology companies for a couple of decades creates.
Kicking the can down the road has done what, exactly? Well, spiked the legal industry coffers, that’s for sure.
