The Wall Street Journal
WSJ:
Tech News Briefing
FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 2025
4/18/2025 3:01:00 AMShare This Episode
Could Google Be Forced to Break Up After District Judge’s Ruling?
A U.S. district judge ruled Google is too dominant in some parts of the online ad industry. WSJ business and legal affairs correspondent Jan Wolfe explains how that could result in Google being forced to sell off parts of its business. Then, at some big companies, artificial intelligence is designing ad campaigns with help from human beings, not the other way around. WSJ CMO Today reporter Patrick Coffee explains how marketers are leaning into AI-led strategies. Victoria Craig hosts.
- lean into /liːn ˈɪntuː/ ～を積極的に取り入れる、受け入れる
ictoria Craig: Hey, TNB listeners. Before we get started, a heads-up. We're going to be asking you a question at the top of each show for the next few weeks. Our goal here at Tech News Briefing is to keep you updated with the latest headlines and trends on all things tech. Now we want to know more about you; what you like about the show and what more you'd like to be hearing from us. Our question this week is what would you like to hear from the tech headlines? If you're listening on Spotify, look for our poll under the episode description, or you can send us an email to tnb@wsj.com. Now, onto the show.
Welcome to Tech News Briefing. It's Friday, April 18th. I'm Victoria Craig for The Wall Street Journal. Our show today about marketing and tech and the limits of both. A US federal judge has ruled that Google operates an illegal ad monopoly. We'll look at what that and other anti-competition cases could mean for the company's future. Then, do we trust artificial intelligence enough to design entire marketing campaigns? We'll look at the ad people who do.
But first, for the second time in eight months a US judge has labeled Google an illegal monopolist. A US District Judge said yesterday that the tech giant's dominance in two parts of the online ad industry harms both advertisers and consumers and deprives rivals of the ability to compete. Though, she rejected a third accusation by the Justice Department. Let's dig into the ruling and what it could mean for Google and its parent company, Alphabet. Jan Wolfe is The Wall Street Journal's business and legal affairs correspondent. First, Jan, walk us through what the US Federal Judge's decision was for Google.
Jan Wolfe: It's a pretty forceful victory for the government. The judge agreed that Google has an unlawful monopoly in two distinct markets; servers and publishers. Basically, there's two different sorts of tools that are used to place ads online, where Google is just dominant, and it achieved that domination unlawfully. And it matters because now that there's this finding of liability, the next phase is for the same judge to hold a remedies trial where she would decide, "Here is some sort of judicial remedy I can impose that would restore competition." And in the worst case scenario, Google would have to sell off some of its advertising products, which are really a cash cow for the company. Ad tech generated 31 billion in revenue last year, or about a 10th of the company's overall sales. So the stakes are really high for Google here.
- finding of liability /ˈfaɪn.dɪŋ əv ˌlaɪ.əˈbɪl.ə.ti/ 法的責任を認める判断・判決
- remedies trial /ˈrɛ.mə.diːz ˈtraɪ.əl/ 救済措置審理（裁判）
- judicial remedy /dʒuˈdɪʃ.əl ˈrɛ.mə.di/ 司法的救済策（裁判所が命じる措置）
- cash cow /kæʃ kaʊ/ 収益源、金のなる木（非常に儲かる事業）
- the stakes are high /ðə steɪks ɑːr haɪ/ 利害関係が大きい、重要度が非常に高い
Victoria Craig: This is not the first time that Google has been labeled a monopolist in the US. How will both Google and the Justice Department move forward with these cases?
Jan Wolfe: Google is under so much antitrust scrutiny that it's hard to keep track of it all. But basically, the way to think of it is that the Justice Department brought two different cases, one about the Google search engine, saying that's an unlawful monopoly, and then another one about ad tech tools; software that's not really used by the general public, but is enormously important for placing advertisements online. And so, now we have rulings of liability in both cases, one in DC and one in Virginia, and the government won in both cases.
- under antitrust scrutiny /ˈʌn.dɚ ˌæn.tiˈtrʌst ˈskruː.tən.i/ 反トラスト法の厳しい監視下にある
- unlawful monopoly /ʌnˈlɔː.fəl məˈnɑː.pə.li/ 違法な独占状態
- rulings of liability /ˈruː.lɪŋz əv ˌlaɪ.əˈbɪl.ə.ti/ 法的責任があるという判決
Victoria Craig: And you mentioned all of the regulatory scrutiny it's under. It's not just in the US, but we've seen this week alone that it's facing antitrust concerns on three different continents. We have one in the UK that alleges that Google overcharged companies there for ad services. And in Japan, a regulator also ordered the company to stop what it called anticompetitive practices in mobile search. Jan, is this kind of scrutiny par for the course for a company as huge and as integrated into internet search and all of these functions that we use on a daily basis, or is this something that could cause real questions about how it operates in the future?
- anticompetitive practices /ˌæn.ti.kəmˈpɛ.tə.tɪv ˈpræk.tɪ.sɪz/ 反競争的な商慣行
- par for the course /pɑːr fɚ ðə kɔːrs/ よくあること、想定内（皮肉的な表現）
- cause real questions about /kɔːz riːəl ˈkwes.tʃənz əˈbaʊt/ ～について本質的な疑問を引き起こす
Jan Wolfe: This antitrust scrutiny is a major threat to Google's business. I don't think they would dispute that. Online platforms have tremendous power over the public square and tremendous access to our data. Because of that, you saw a crackdown in recent years. It's sort of an area of bipartisan agreement. And now we're moving to the phase where we find out, okay, well what's going to happen? And it's moving slowly because these are enormously complex cases involving expert witnesses, tons of fact witnesses, like former executives who get on the witness stand and testify. What we're seeing now is it's coming to a head and it's not going particularly well for Google.
- antitrust scrutiny /ˌæn.tiˈtrʌst ˈskruː.tən.i/ 独占禁止法に基づく精査・監視
- public square /ˈpʌb.lɪk skwer/ 公共の議論の場（ネット上の発言空間なども含む）
- crackdown /ˈkræk.daʊn/ 取り締まり、締め付け
- bipartisan agreement /ˌbaɪˈpɑːr.tə.zən əˈɡriː.mənt/ 超党派の合意（政党を超えて賛同される政策）
- coming to a head /ˈkʌ.mɪŋ tuː ə hed/ 重大な局面を迎える、問題が山場に差し掛かる
- expert witnesses /ˈek.spɝːt ˈwɪt.nəs.ɪz/ 専門家証人（専門的見地から証言する人物）
- fact witnesses /fækt ˈwɪt.nəs.ɪz/ 事実証人（実際の出来事に関わった人）
- testify /ˈtes.tə.faɪ/ 証言する
Victoria Craig: And you mentioned in the very beginning that there's potential that Google could be forced to sell off some of its business. How likely is that looking, and what does it mean for Google when it comes to competition in these broader markets of search and advertising?
Jan Wolfe: So it would be a major setback for Google, but there's still a lot of litigation left to come. We have findings of liability against Google from two federal judges, but both of those decisions are going to be appealed. There's also potential for a settlement that is negotiated in a way where it's not that burdensome for Google. And I should point out that these judges have to also consider whether the facts have changed since these cases were brought. For instance, you could be a monopolist based on conduct from five years ago, but then a judge might say, "Well, you know what? The market's changed a lot because of say AI, because of new competition, and I am reluctant to do anything that might squelch innovation."
- major setback /ˈmeɪ.dʒɚ ˈset.bæk/ 大きな後退・痛手
- litigation /ˌlɪ.t̬əˈɡeɪ.ʃən/ 訴訟（全般的な法的手続き）
- findings of liability /ˈfaɪn.dɪŋz əv ˌlaɪ.əˈbɪl.ə.ti/ 責任認定（裁判所による違法性の判断）
- appealed /əˈpiːld/ 控訴された、上訴された
- settlement /ˈset.əl.mənt/ 和解（裁判以外での合意による解決）
- not that burdensome /nɑːt ðæt ˈbɝː.dən.səm/ それほど負担にならない
- whether the facts have changed /ˈweð.ɚ ðə fækts hæv ʧeɪndʒd/ 事実が変わっているかどうか
- monopolist /məˈnɑː.pə.lɪst/ 独占事業者
- squelch innovation /skwelʧ ˌɪn.əˈveɪ.ʃən/ イノベーションを抑える、潰す
Victoria Craig: We should also mention Google's response to all of this. In some of these cases, particularly in the overseas cases, they've said that they're going to vigorously defend themselves and that they disagree with some of these findings. What is Google's stance on the ruling in the US?
- vigorous(ly) defend /ˈvɪɡ.ɚ.əs.li dɪˈfend/ 力強く・全力で防御（反論）する
Jan Wolfe: So Google said it's pleased that some of the Justice Department's theories were rejected. I mean, for example, Justice Department said that there were three different distinct markets at issue, and it wasn't able to prevail on all three. It prevailed on two. And Google says it's going to keep trying to chip away at this case on appeal. And another strategy would be to try and convince the judge to not impose too extreme of a remedy.
- prevail on /prɪˈveɪl ɑːn/ ～で勝つ、優勢になる
- chip away at /tʃɪp əˈweɪ ət/ 少しずつ削る、着実に弱体化させる
- appeal /əˈpiːl/ 控訴する、上訴する／控訴
- remedy /ˈrem.ə.di/ （法的）救済措置、是正策
Victoria Craig: What does this mean for consumers? I mean, you and I who go and we search on Google every day, will we see an impact to any of these decisions if it does come to Google ending up with a forced breakup of its business?
Jan Wolfe: So in the ad tech case that has now resulted in a ruling, a lot of the trial testimony was from executives within the news business, like the media industry who have said that there's real harm to the public because Google, they say, takes too large of a cut of digital advertising on the web. So according to the government, if we see some real remedies here for Google, what's going to happen, at least in their view, is that you'll see different media companies or just different website-based companies making more money. And because of that, being able to offer better services and products to the public.
- take too large of a cut /teɪk tuː lɑːrdʒ əv ə kʌt/ 取り分が多すぎる、分け前を取りすぎる
>take a cut /teɪk ə kʌt/ 「分け前を取る」「手数料を取る」「利益の一部を得る」
Victoria Craig: That's Jan Wolfe, WSJ Business and Legal Affairs correspondent. And a heads-up; The Wall Street Journal's parent company, News Corp, has been an outspoken critic of Google and was among the companies that were contacted by antitrust investigators.
- outspoken critic /ˌaʊtˈspoʊ.kən ˈkrɪ.tɪk/
→ 公然と批判する人（または企業）
Meanwhile, at the intersection of tech and marketing, AI is coming for Madison Avenue. After the break, we'll explain how humans are the ones lending AI a helping hand to make ads, not the other way around.
- intersection /ˌɪn.təˈsɛk.ʃən/ : 交差点、交差する場所
-
lend a helping hand /lɛnd ə ˈhɛlpɪŋ hænd/ : 助けの手を差し伸べる、手助けする
-
the other way around /ði ˈʌðər weɪ əˈraʊnd/ : 逆の方法で、逆の順番で
A little background for this next story. Before we called up the reporter, the calendar invite we used decided to attach an illustration of a coffee pot. That's because the reporter is Patrick Coffee. He's a marketing and advertising reporter for WSJ's CMO Today. It seems the scheduling software saw the word coffee and thought, "That makes sense." So given that, should we be trusting artificial intelligence to design and execute marketing campaigns for big brands? Patrick has been looking into exactly that question. Patrick, we'll get to whether marketers should hand over the keys to AI in a second. But first, can you just explain why they would even want to do that in the first place?
- hand over the keys to /hænd ˈoʊvər ðə kiːz tuː/ : ～の運転席を渡す、～の管理を任せる
- in a second: 「あとで」や「すぐに」
Patrick Coffee: Well, essentially marketers have a constant demand to produce more content. One of the main reasons is that a big part of marketing strategy now is to personalize everything, going from addressing each customer by name to using the data that they've collected to customize whatever you're showing them based on where they're located, what they buy, the interest they've expressed through their online and things like that. So, marketers are increasingly turning to generative AI tools, and they do everything from creating websites to straight up generating ideas for campaigns, and now making videos.
- turn to /tɜːrn tuː/ : 〜に頼る、〜に向かう、〜を使用する
Victoria Craig: The thing that I'm really struck by in your story is that it isn't just AI assisting humans in this process. It is exactly the opposite of that.
Patrick Coffee: Yeah, that's fascinating. That's from Opella, which is the consumer products division of Sanofi. They just have an entire team of AI-trained people, and their chief growth officer told me that they don't really tweak the output of the AI. They don't look at an image and say, "Oh, that's the wrong color," or, "oh, we need to make that figure look a little different." Because by the time you can change one little thing, the AI will have produced so much more that you can just pick from what comes out. And obviously they have people who do fact checks, especially because they're in a highly regulated industry, so they can't have things that are medically inaccurate in their content. But they've gotten it so that in their minds it's so refined that all they really have to do is just wait for it to churn out stuff, and then they pick from the results.
- Tweak /twiːk/ : 微調整する、少し変更する
- Output /ˈaʊtpʊt/ : 出力、成果物
- Churn out /ʧɜːrn aʊt/ : 次々に生み出す、製造する
- Fact checks /fækt ʧɛks/ : 事実確認
- Highly regulated /ˈhaɪli ˈrɛɡjʊˌleɪtɪd/ : 高度に規制された
Victoria Craig: So how do these companies actually train these AI systems? Because we talk a lot on the show about training AI to do this or that, but what does it actually take? What are the inputs that these companies like Sanofi is using to trust these AI machines enough that they can do these ad campaigns essentially solo?
- Essentially solo /ɪˈsɛnʃəli ˈsoʊloʊ/ : 実質的に単独で、ほぼ一人で
Patrick Coffee: A lot of it is just the material that's already been released by the companies. It doesn't take that much. They'll feed it three or four campaigns that this brand did recently, and as they create more stuff, they feed it more prior material. But what they say is it's just so well-attuned to whatever they feed it, that it then acts as this particular brand. At the same time that creates the issue, how does the average consumer trust what they know to be AI-generated? And from the advertiser's perspective, how effective will this be in convincing you or I to buy the product? People see something, and especially if they know that it's AI, they'll be looking for these imperfections and they'll be skeptical of it.
- Attuned to /əˈtjuːnd tuː/ : ～に適応する、～に調整されている
Victoria Craig: That was Patrick Coffee, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal's CMO Today. And that's it for Tech News Briefing. Today's show was produced by Julie Chang and Pierre Bienaimé. I'm your host, Victoria Craig. Jessica Fenton and Michael LaValle wrote our theme music. Our development producer is Aisha Al-Muslim. Scott Saloway and Chris Zinsli are the deputy editors. And Philana Patterson is The Wall Street Journal's Head of News Audio. We'll be back this afternoon with TNB Tech Minute. Thanks for listening.
WSJ: APRIL 18, 2005
Trump and Powell on Collision Course Without Easy Escape
The president wants an interest-rate cut, but his trade war has Powell boxed in.
- on collision course /ɒn kəˈlɪʒən kɔːrs/ : 衝突の道をたどって、対立が避けられない状態で（直訳：衝突コース上にある）
- boxed in /bɒkst ɪn/ : 身動きが取れない、追い詰められた状態（比喩表現で「自由に動けない」こと）
The Week Google and Meta Faced an Antitrust Reckoning
The two titans of digital advertising are facing unprecedented legal threats over tactics they used to reach dominance.
- faced an antitrust reckoning /feɪst ən ˌæntiˈtrʌst ˈrɛkənɪŋ/ : 独占禁止法に関する審判・清算に直面した（"reckoning" は「清算」「報い」の意味を持つ強い語）
- "titans" は「巨人」「大物」
- tactics they used to reach dominance /ˈtæktɪks ðeɪ juːzd tuː riːtʃ ˈdɑːmɪnəns/ : 支配的地位に至るために用いた戦術（"dominance" は「支配」や「優勢」）
How Nvidia Plays Export Whack-a-Mole
As the U.S. has stepped up chip-export restrictions, Nvidia has maintained a China presence by making versions of its processors that qualify for sale there.
- plays export Whack-a-Mole /pleɪz ˈɛkspɔːrt ˈwæk ə ˌmoʊl/ : 「輸出モグラたたき」をする（規制に対応して次々と策を講じる様子を“Whack-a-Mole＝モグラたたき”にたとえた比喩）
- versions of its processors that qualify for sale /ˈvɜːrʒənz əv ɪts ˈproʊsɛsərz ðæt ˈkwɑːləˌfaɪ fər seɪl/ : 販売条件を満たすプロセッサのバージョン（"qualify for sale"＝販売が許可される条件を満たす）
Private Equity World Engulfed by Perfect Storm
Tariff-related market turmoil dashes investors’ hopes for payouts as dealmaking grinds to a near standstill.
-
engulf /ɪnˈɡʌlf/ : 飲み込む、圧倒する
-
dash /dæʃ/ : 打ち砕く、粉砕する（希望などを）
-
payout /ˈpeɪaʊt/ : 支払い、配当、分配金
-
dealmaking /ˈdiːlˌmeɪkɪŋ/ : 取引活動、契約交渉
-
grind to a standstill /ɡraɪnd tuː ə ˈstændstɪl/ : 徐々に停止する、行き詰まる
Trump Threatens Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
The administration targeted the hosting of international students after Harvard resisted sweeping demands this week.
- threatens [someone's] ability to ~ /ˈθrɛtənz əˈbɪləti tuː/ : ～する能力を脅かす（ここでは「ハーバードが留学生を受け入れる能力」）
- enroll international students /ɪnˈroʊl ˌɪntəˈnæʃənl ˈstuːdənts/ : 留学生を入学させる enroll /ɪnˈroʊl/ : 登録する、入学させる
- resist /rɪˈzɪst/ : 抵抗する
Supreme Court to Weigh Trump’s Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
The justices will hear oral arguments next month over the legality of the executive order.
- to weigh Trump’s bid to ~ /tuː weɪ trʌmps bɪd tuː/ : トランプ氏の～しようとする試みを審理する（"weigh" は「慎重に検討する」）
Police Say He Killed in Self-Defense. His Phone Tells Another Story.
Two drivers crossed paths on Highway 9, headed for trouble. One ended up dead, the other walked free, but there was much more to know.
- killed in self-defense /kɪld ɪn ˌsɛlf dɪˈfɛns/ : 正当防衛による殺人
- crossed paths /krɔːst pæθs/ : （偶然に）出会った、接触した
- headed for trouble /ˈhɛdɪd fɔːr ˈtrʌbəl/ : 面倒な事態に向かっていた、トラブルの予感
- walk free /wɔːk friː/ : 無罪放免になる、自由の身になる
How Corey Lewandowski Became Kristi Noem’s Gatekeeper at DHS
Trump’s former campaign chief is working as her de facto chief of staff despite White House concerns about their relationship.
-
gatekeepe/ˈɡeɪtˌkiːpər/ : 門番、管理者（重要な情報やアクセスを制限する役職）
-
DHS /diː eɪʧ ɛs/ : Department of Homeland Security（国土安全保障省）
-
de facto /diː ˈfæktəʊ/ : 事実上の、実質的な
Son of County Sheriff Deputy Arrested in Florida University Shooting
The suspect killed two people and wounded at least five others, authorities said.
-
son of County Sheriff Deputy /sʌn əv ˈkaʊnti ˈʃɛrɪf ˈdɛpjəti/ : 郡保安官代理の息子
-
sheriff /ˈʃɛrɪf/ : 保安官（郡レベルの警察責任者）
-
deputy /ˈdɛpjəti/ : 副官、代理人（ここでは「保安官代理」）
Court Scolds Trump Administration for ‘Shocking’ Response to Deportation Error
The decision underscores the legal stakes in the government’s response to orders to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
- underscore /ˌʌndərˈskɔːr/ : 強調する、明確にする
- legal stakes /ˈliːɡl steɪks/ : 法的な利害関係・リスク（判決の持つ法的影響）
GOP Accused Democrats of Politicizing IRS. Now Trump Wants It to Punish Harvard.
The president this week publicly raised the prospect of Harvard losing its tax-exempt status.
- politicizing IRS /pəˈlɪtɪˌsaɪzɪŋ ˌaɪ ɑːr ˈɛs/ : IRS（内国歳入庁）を政治利用すること
-
raised the prospect of ~ /reɪzd ðə ˈprɑːspɛkt əv/ : ～の可能性を示唆した、公に取り上げた
-
losing tax-exempt status /ˈluːzɪŋ tæks ɪɡˈzɛmpt ˈsteɪtəs/ : 非課税（免税）資格を失うこと
-
GOP /ˌʤiː oʊ ˈpiː/ : 共和党（"Grand Old Party" の略）
-
IRS (Internal Revenue Service) /ˌaɪ ɑːr ˈɛs/ : 米国内国歳入庁（税務当局）