Just the day before, the alliance announced the introduction of ‘Social Plus’ which they say is a new term that defines the category of freemium social games provided by SGLA partners. They describe these as being online social games with sweepstake promotions that “deliver interactive board, card and casino-style games to millions of Americans.”

The online casino-related bill, H.4431, was referred to the committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. At present, nothing has yet been actioned as the committee will accept written testimony until November 20.

In testimony to the committee, Sean Ostrow, the managing director of SGLA, urged them to consider an alternative approach that would “pay dividends to the Commonwealth for years to come by regulating and taxing Social Plus games.”

Committee to create report on Massachusetts bill H.4431 next month

The organization believes that allowing the ‘thriving’ industry to continue will generate new revenue for the Bay State. The SGLA also suggests that voters are opposed to the potential ban.

“A recent nationwide survey by Seven Letter Insight found that 84% of U.S. voters support modernizing laws to regulate and tax online Social Plus games. Only 8% believe the games should be banned, and just 4% say this issue should be a priority compared to concerns like inflation, health care, and housing,” a SGLA article reads.

The committee, which has been hearing both sides of the argument, has until December 17 to formulate a report.

“The SGLA stands behind strong regulation and consumer protection, responsible social gameplay for adults only, fair taxation, and enabling economic development here in the Commonwealth,” said Ostrow. “We look forward to working with members of this committee to achieve these mutually beneficial outcomes.”

Featured Image: Canva

The post SGLA testifies before Massachusetts committee about ‘Social Plus’ gaming appeared first on Our Story Insight.

Glenn Berntson, an engineering director for Google Ad Manager, acknowledged the potential remedy during the second week of a high-stakes antitrust trial in Virginia federal court. He was called as a witness by Google’s defense lawyers.

Providing “publishers with these detailed insights, I think, is a good idea,” Berntson said during cross-examination by the Justice Department’s attorneys, according to Bloomberg. “The specifics is something we’d have to explore.”

Google is willing to share more advertising data to publishers to address concerns about its illegal monopoly over digital advertising technology. AFP via Getty Images

Google is trying to wriggle out of a more damaging forced breakup of its digital advertising empire. The DOJ has argued that Google should be required to sell its key ad exchange, AdX, to restore fair competition and protect news publishers and advertisers that rely on the system.

Any remedy short of divestiture should be a “hard pass,” according to Jason Kint, the CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade group that represents online publishers.

“What publishers need isn’t another last-minute desperate gesture from Google as they try to avoid absolutely necessary structural remedies,” said Kint. “The Department of Justice has put on a brilliant case presenting remedies that will actually stop Google’s illegal conduct harming publishers, deny Google the fruits of it, restore competition and to avoid re-monopolization going forward.”

US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who has final say over which remedies to implement, ruled in April that Google had violated the Sherman Act by dominating the online publisher ad server market, as well as the ad-exchange market that connects ad buyers to sellers.  

The shared data could include details on how Google’s ad server determines which display ads to show – boosting transparency about the inner workings the auction system that the company uses to buy and sell ad space in real time, according to Berntston.

The DOJ has also proposed that Google make the auction process more transparent by sharing data, but Berntson testified on the stand that simply releasing source code about the auction process wouldn’t necessarily help publishers understand it.

Instead, Berntson said Google could release a breakdown explaining its digital auction process. At the same time, he admitted that larger publishers with more resources would likely want to see the source code itself.

US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in April that Google had violated the Sherman Act by dominating the online publisher ad server market, as well as the ad-exchange market that connects ad buyers to sellers. REUTERS

On the stand, Berntson was “incredibly non-committal and fairly vaguely acknowledged that transparency is good,” according to Arielle Garcia, the COO of Check My Ads, a digital ad industry watchdog.

“Technical documentation isn’t a substitute for allowing publishers to independently audit the data about their own campaigns or to see the underlying logic, so this is yet another surface-level commitment that doesn’t do much,” Garcia said.

News publishers and other Google critics have long complained that the auction process for ad sales is too opaque and leaves businesses at a loss to explain how ads are selected.

The trial’s remedy phase is expected to conclude as soon as this week. Google has vowed to appeal Brinkema’s original finding that it has a monopoly in digital advertising.

Start your day with all you need to know

Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more.

Thanks for signing up!

Attorneys for Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, said the DOJ’s proposal for forced divestiture could break the technology, causing disruption for the businesses that rely on the system to do business.

Rather than a breakup, Google has floated making the tools easier to use and more compatible with third-party tools.

Attorneys for Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, said the DOJ’s proposal for forced divestiture could break the technology, causing disruption for the businesses that rely on the technology to do business. AP

However, in a key moment last week, Google advertising executive Tim Craycroft admitted under the DOJ’s questioning that the company held internal discussions about the feasibility of selling part of its ad business as recently as last year, The Information reported.

The outcome of the case represents a potential existential threat for Google, which dodged the worst-case scenario in a separate antitrust case targeting its online search business earlier this month.

In that case, US District Judge Amit Mehta shot down the DOJ’s request for a forced selloff of Google’s Chrome web browser. Instead, he required Google to share more search data with rivals.

The post Google willing to share digital ad data with publishers to address monopoly, executive testifies appeared first on Our Story Insight.