The Mississippi Attorney General (AG) revealed that his office is preparing an antitrust case against Google, accusing the tech giant of controlling a “pipeline” of data.
“We attorneys general have authority under consumer protection acts to do both,” said Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, according to CNBC, on Monday (March 18). “So it’ll be a multifaceted suit or, hopefully, we can get a settlement if we can get some agreement with them.”
Hood said he wants all the major tech companies to adopt practices similar to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). While he would rather the companies present their own proposals on how they plan to implement those regulations, his office is preparing the lawsuit that could lead to a settlement.
“At some point in the future, there will be a reckoning. It’ll either be in Congress or in a court of law,” he said. “If we don’t have successful legislation, [the] court is going to rule to the effect that a person’s private information is the equivalent of their intellectual property, and that companies have to pay people for it.”
In a statement to CNBC, Google said, “Privacy and security are built into all of our products, and we will continue to engage constructively with state attorneys general on policy issues.”
Hood isn’t the only AG going after big tech companies. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich recently compared the firm to a monopoly, and pointed to the “inaction or inability” of the nation’s lawmakers to stop it.
“They control the pipeline and have the duty to protect that information, as well as these other smaller companies,” Brnovich said in an interview with CNBC. “I [want to] see us do some things like, you know, if you download an app, for example, you have to opt in to allow them to mine your data.”
Full Content: PYMNTS
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh