THREAD (1) As always, the @WSJ does first rate resporting on ad tech with this interesting story on the Texas lawsuit. https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-facebook-agreed-to-team-up-against-possible-antitrust-action-draft-lawsuit-says-11608612219?mod=hp_lead_pos1

(2) As we know, one of the key element in the complaint is that @Google and @Facebook colluded to undermine Header Bidding and distort competition in Open Bidding.

(3) That was of course very damaging for publishers as it allowed then to obtain better yields for their inventory (up to 40%) as they could circumvent the self-preferencing tactics of Google.

(4) The @WSJ story quotes a Google spokesperson saying that "the states’ 'claims are inaccurate. We don’t manipulate the auction,' ... adding that the deal wasn’t secret and that Facebook participates in other ad auctions."

(5) Yet, oddly enough, this deal is nowhere mentioned in the @CMA Market Study on online platforms and digital advertising, which studied Google and Facebook's ad tech practices in the most minute detail.

(6) I also know from good source that other competition authorities that have been looking at Google's ad tech activities never heard of this agreement despite the fact they sent multiple RFIs to Google.

(7) Does this mean that Google may have lied, at least by omission? That would not be entirely surprising when one knows the anticompetitive objectives of the agreement.

(8) The Texas complaint notes that an internal Facebook document described the deal as “relatively cheap” when compared with direct competition, while a Google presentation said if the company couldn’t “avoid competing with” Facebook, it would collaborate to “build a moat.”

(9) If collusion is proved, Google and Facebook are in very serious trouble.