Google calls Paxton’s claims with no AMP web page throttling and others unfounded

Please read first Google slowed down the speed of non-AMP pages, created a format to make header bids more difficult, antitrust complaints History on Search Engine Land. In short, Attorney General Paxton’s allegations were that Google was throttling non-AMP pages and using various techniques to promote its own ad business and more.

To be clear, this is about slowing down ads on non-AMP pages, not slowing down the pages themselves.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Newly unresolved complaints against Google claim that the search giant’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP), which the company claimed would “dramatically improve” the performance of the mobile web when it launched in 2015, were indeed a plan to attract publishers Forcing them to use the format to limit advertising money not spent on their own ad exchanges.

The lawsuit, which is being brought by the state of Texas on behalf of 16 mostly Republican states, goes so far that Google has even throttled the loading speed of pages without AMP in order to give AMP a “nice comparison boost”.

“The throttling of non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to disparage header bidding as too slow,” it says. “’Header bidding, if done incorrectly, can often increase website latency and create security loopholes,’ falsely claimed Google. Internally, Google employees dealt with “How to” [publicly] justify [Google] make it a little slower, “says the complaint.

Read the whole for more details.

The SEO community and beyond – has been in an uproar on Twitter for the past few days, especially over the weekend, over these allegations. Here are some tweets:

All these years, all these Googlers, developers and SEOs defending AMP … And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I only wish journalist @dannysullivan (before Google bought it) was here to judge her for these disgusting actions.

(above https://t.co/XExHtnNmKM) pic.twitter.com/I9M03L7E82

– Rand Fishkin (@randfish) October 24, 2021

P.91 https://t.co/88UljcW8Tf

– Tom MacWright (@tmcw) October 23, 2021

we have an official answer pic.twitter.com/cIATT3Jnzk

– Tom MacWright (@tmcw) October 23, 2021

Incidentally, Malte worked a lot on the AMP project.

Patrick McGee has most of the details, the thread starts with this tweet, click through and scroll:

A * huge thread * too alleged @Google @Facebook Agreements based on the just published * unprocessed * complaint from Texas AG. December first submitted.

Everything PURPLE is new, not edited.

Yellow / orange are just normal highlights.

1/?

– Patrick McGee (@PatrickMcGee_) October 22, 2021

But the full complaint can be read over here.

When I read it, I thought, show me the evidence. It points to internal google docs, but where are those internal docs I want to see them. I’ve been involved in SEO legal opinions and can tell you that lawyers are really confused about how search engines, ad networks, AMP and technology in general work. So, I’d like to read these internal google docs and see if his claims from these docs are without a doubt real.

And I waited, so Google sent us this statement yesterday afternoon:

“Just because Attorney General Paxton is making something is not true. This lawsuit is full of inaccuracies. In reality, our advertising technologies are helping websites and apps fund their content and enabling small businesses to reach customers around the world. Competition in online advertising has resulted in lower ad tech fees and expanded options for publishers and advertisers . We will vigorously defend ourselves against his unfounded claims in court. “- Google spokesman

Google also referred to his old blog post “AG Paxton’s claims about AMP and header bidding are simply wrong. Google engineers worked with publishers and other technology companies to develop AMP to help web pages load faster and improve the mobile experience – so as not to interfere with header bidding. AMP supports a number of monetization options, including header bidding, and publishers are free to use both AMP and header bidding technologies together if they so choose.

Again, I’d like to dig into these internal documents and see if I can determine whether or not Google actually did any of these things alleged in this court document. Could I know from the document or the internal documents? I do not know. But now all I know is how these internal documents are interpreted and not the actual documents.

I liked these tweets:

Yes, that’s a fair assessment. I should be careful not to jump on it too quickly until there is more evidence, I was looking at things @jason_kint will also be published, although I could not find the main document from which this Article 249 was originally quoted in Rand’s share.

– Kirk Williams 🚴 (@PPCKirk) October 24, 2021

Anyway, when Google did these things, it is just so evil and bad.

Forum discussion at Twitter.