[onetimemanytime]

>>...and that the company went so far as to hinder non-AMP ads "by giving them artificial one second delays" to convince publishers not to use header bidding.

Isn't this criminal, as in facing jail time? And this was not done by a rogue person, execs debated this and entire teams implemented and knew about this.

[fakedang]

Not criminal, but certainly grounds for antitrust.

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

It’s not criminal, nor should it be, or do you want it to be.

Among other things, criminal law requires a higher level of proof. Whatever benefit you hope for would be nullified by far fewer actual prosecutions and convictions.

[pjc50]

What law would it be breaking? What is the likelihood of that law being enforced against a multi billion dollar business?

[fzzzy]

Anticompetitive Tying. Google used the existing ad monopoly to try to gain a news distribution monopoly.

Pretty low.

[onetimemanytime]

PURPOSEFULLY interfered with someone else's product by making it slower. Like Pepsi finding a way to dilute Coke's concentration in each bottle.

[yostrovs]

Looks like fraud to me. The webpages were made slow by Google and the reason given was different than the cause of the slowdown.