The latest courtroom drama between one of the British tabloids and Google may seem, at first glance, a more or less private affair between one player and the other. However, once the surface is scratched, the courtroom drama has all the wits to turn into something more. It could be the Indonesia Mobile Database first step in changing relations between Google and the media, but also the crucial battle in the war between the old-fashioned media and the online giants over how power is shared. The mainstream media accuse the online giants of having a dominant position. The judicial process could lead to addressing that in a much more in-depth way. What exactly is happening? The battle has been planted by the Daily Mail and the point of conflict is the place that the articles on the British royal family published by the British newspaper occupy in the search results of the giant. 
According to the accusation of the Daily Mail , presented before a federal court in Manhattan as published by The Wall Street Journal , Google would have punished the Daily Mail : the company that publishes the newspaper assures that its news about the British royal family has been penalized in the results search results this year to occupy much lower positions. It would be a punishment for selling little advertising space on the Google marketplace. According to the publishers, who have Brother Cell Phone List sued Alphabet, the owner of Google, for monopolistic practices, the company is manipulating search results and advertising auctions to punish online media. If they do not sell enough publicity through them, they claim, they are punished.
Thus, the Daily Mail points out that in recent times its news has not appeared prominently in search results with key terms of the moment (“Meghan and Harry”, “Piers Morgan” or “Prince Philip”, the terms in English for the latest news from the British royals). British tabloids are often very popular with this type of news. Google has completely denied the allegations and noted that the Daily Mail’s claims are “completely wrong.” Even so, and as much as Google defends itself, the reputational damage has already been done, especially since the tensions between media and Google are not something new. As recalled in the Journal , media executives often complain on a recurring basis about Google and its dominance, although few are those who later come to make these accusations in public and few are also those who make radical decisions such as questioning complaints (several local US media have done so).
To that must be added the leak of the so-called Project Bernanke, which came to light as a result of a judicial process in Texas. The project started from big data, using data from past advertising auctions, to give Google a competitive advantage: the accusation in that Texas process points out that Google is always the winner in the context it creates. Google has acknowledged that the project existed, but not that it was inappropriate. As the company has defended itself, it is similar to what its rivals do in the advertising market. Furthermore, the Daily Mail does not only address this point in its lawsuit. He also defends that the blackout of the cookies that Chrome will make will mean an imbalance in the market. According to their allegations, it will be more difficult for advertisers to reach consumers if they do not go through Google services.
