RT Bloomberg Opinion (@opinion)Google’s antitrust loss now feels like a win.@daveleebbg explains why the greatest threat to Google’s power isn’t antitrust law, but the increased use of ChatGPT and other AI tools instead of traditional web search 🎥 https://t.co/V8vZMnOF3U ...

Core Viewpoint - A US judge has largely rejected a request by major asset managers, including BlackRock, to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Texas and 12 other Republican-led states, which alleges that these companies violated antitrust laws through climate activism that negatively impacted coal production and increased energy prices [1][5]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit is one of the most prominent cases targeting efforts to promote environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals [2]. - The states' claims against the asset managers include allegations of joining Climate Action 100+, an initiative aimed at combating climate change, and using shareholder advocacy to further its objectives [3][4]. - The judge dismissed only three of the 21 counts in the lawsuit, allowing the majority of the claims to proceed [1]. Group 2: Implications for Asset Managers - The outcome of the lawsuit could significantly affect how these asset managers, which collectively manage approximately $27 trillion, handle their investments and passive funds [6][7]. - One potential remedy sought by the plaintiffs is for the asset managers to divest from coal companies, which BlackRock argues would harm access to capital and likely lead to higher energy prices [6].

Core Viewpoint - Google plans to appeal a judge's ruling that found the company holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology, while also acknowledging a "mixed decision" where some claims were dismissed [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The judge ruled that the Justice Department did not prove that Google's advertising tools or acquisitions, such as DoubleClick and AdMeld, were anticompetitive, but found that Google's publisher tools exclude rivals, violating antitrust laws [1][3]. - Google will appeal the portion of the ruling regarding its publisher tools, asserting that publishers choose Google for its simple, affordable, and effective ad tech tools [2][3]. - The Department of Justice, along with a group of states, had sued Google, claiming its monopoly in advertising technology allowed it to charge higher prices and capture a larger share of sales [4]. Group 2: Implications of the Ruling - Judge Leonie Brinkema stated that Google's exclusionary conduct harmed not only rivals but also its publisher customers and ultimately consumers of information on the open web [5]. - The Department of Justice emphasized that the court found Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets [5]. - Attorney General Pam Bondi described the ruling as a landmark victory in the fight against Google's monopolization of the digital public square, indicating ongoing legal actions to protect free speech and markets [6].