MediaPost reported Dentsu, Publicis Groupe, and WPP reached agreements with the Federal Trade Commission to stop engaging in “unlawful collusion that imposed uniform standards on brand safety.”
Omnicom and IPG previously reached similar agreements with the FTC during regulatory approval of Omnicom’s acquisition of IPG.
The holding companies are not prohibited from continuing to engage in Corporate Cultural Collusion and/or concerted hiring practices that maintain exclusivity.
Indeed, the FTC complaints are arguably connected to anti-Woke and anti-DEIBA+ political platforms.
FTC: Dentsu, Publicis, WPP Agree To Discontinue ‘Brand Safety’ Standards
By Wendy Davis, Joe Mandese
The Federal Trade Commission this morning announced agreements with three big agency holding companies — Dentsu, Publicis and WPP — to discontinue what the FTC described as “unlawful collusion that imposed uniform standards on brand safety.”
Citing previous agreements by Interpublic and Omnicom as part of the FTC’s regulatory approval of their merger late last year, the federal agency said Dentsu, Publicis and WPP have also agreed to a proposed order that “will stop the alleged coordinated conduct and prevent similar conduct from occurring in the future.”
“WPP Media confirms that it has reached agreement on a mutually acceptable consent order with the FTC on a no admit nor deny basis,” WPP Media said in a statement, adding, “We are pleased to finalize this agreement with the FTC which reflects our existing and ongoing commitment to provide our clients with unbiased advice as they decide where to place their media.”
“The ad agencies’ brand-safety conspiracy turned competition in the market for ad-buying services on its head,” FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said in a statement, adding, “The antitrust laws guarantee participation in a market free from conduct, such as economic boycotts, that distort the fundamental competitive pressures that promote lower prices, higher quality products and increased innovation.”
“As we explain in our complaint, the brand-safety agreement limited competition in the market for ad-buying services and deprived advertisers of the benefits of differentiated brand-safety standards that could be tailored to their unique advertising inventory,” he continued. “This unlawful collusion not only damaged our marketplace, but also distorted the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech and ideas that fell below the unlawfully agreed-upon floor. The proposed order remedies the dangers inherent to collusive practices and restores competition to the digital news ecosystem.”
The FTC cites all of the named holdco’s utilization of data from “firms like NewsGuard and Global Disinformation Index” to “promote the demonetization of disfavored political viewpoints. In a competitive market, ad agencies compete for advertisers’ business by offering brand-safety tools that provide the best quality at the lowest cost. The brand safety agreement displaced competition by insulating the ad agencies from these competitive conditions, according to the complaint.”
The FTC complaint also alleged the holdcos “operated through their trade associations — specifically, the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media (“GARM”) and the American Association of Advertising Agencies’ Advertiser Protection Bureau (“APB”) — to establish their common brand-safety standards. Under the agencies’ brand-safety agreement, websites that included so-called “misinformation” were deemed to fall below the brand safety floor and thus risked becoming categorically ineligible for advertising revenue.”
The settlement still needs to be approved by a federal judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment