Perplexity has stepped up to argue with the U.S. Department of Justice that it should not divest the Chrome browser from Google, calling the push a major "mistake" for the industry.  

Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas argued that removing Chrome from Google would hurt users while leaving the real issue of Android untouched.

"We don't believe anyone else can run a browser at that scale without a hit on quality, nor the business model to be able to serve that many users profitably by keeping the browser free," Srinivas wrote on the social media platform X. "Chromium is open source, and others can build using that. Evidence: Microsoft Edge and Perplexity's upcoming Comet browser."

Comet is Perplexity's new AI-powered browser, described as an "agentic search" experience that leverages AI to automate tasks. It aims to differentiate itself from traditional browsers like Chrome by integrating AI capabilities directly into the browsing process.

Chrome, along with many other platforms, is built on Chromium, an open-source project. Aside from Google's web browser, other projects built on Chromium include Microsoft Edge, Brave Browser, and Opera. It is also used by ChromiumOS, a Linux distribution designed for web-based applications. Companies like Google, Microsoft, and others built their products on the Chromium project to create their own web browsers with unique features and branding.

"The risk for America isn’t that Google is too dominant," Perplexity wrote in a blog post. "It’s when any company uses their dominance to limit consumer choice, especially when better options already exist."

The remedy to this problem, according to Perplexity, is to prevent restrictive contracts that limit OEMs and carriers from giving consumers choices. If regulators overreact in this remedy phase the alternative could be worse. 

"Chrome has rightly earned its dominant position in the market because it has been (emphasis on has-been) a superior product," Perplexity wrote. "For consumers, that made it a welcome choice."

After OpenAI showed interest in buying Chrome, Perplexity reportedly testified at the trial it would like to buy Chrome if it came up for sale, and the open-source Chromium platform would likely go along with it.

When asked during the remedy trial whether any company other than Google could operate a browser as large as Google Chrome without compromising quality or introducing new costs, Perplexity Chief Business Officer Dmitry Shevelenko reportedly said, "I think we could do it."

But Perplexity wants to see consumer choice rather than a breakup of Google assets. The company said the real issue is that Google forces phone makers to preload its apps like Search and Assistant to get access to essentials like Play Store or YouTube. Every smartphone powers on with pre-selected apps the consumer didn't choose, and that is where the monopoly resides.

Openness works, but consumers need choice, Perplexity wrote in a blog post. "The heart of this case is that a platform is no longer 'open' when it's accompanied by legal obligations to promote Google's products."

Android is an example. While the operating system is open-source, Google's rules and revenue agreements are what made Google a monopoly, according to Perplexity. When a phonemaker wants to include any of Google's apps like Google Maps or Play Store, it is required to include all of them, and preload Google Search and Google Assistant as required defaults and limit alternatives for their users.

There are no shortages for buyers of the Chrome OS. DuckDuckGo executives also reportedly testified and shared an interest in buying Chrome if a federal court ordered Google to forcibly divest the browser. The executive estimated Chrome's market value is more than $50 billion. 

Jung von Matt London has appointed new senior creatives: Joe Roberts and Doug Redfern.

The pair join the agency from Havas London.

They report to executive creative directors Charlie Hurst and Marcos Gemal and begin work on the global Mini business, which the agency won in February.

During their three years at Havas, the duo created various campaigns, including “Grow like only a teacher can” for the Department for Education and John West’s tie-up with the 2024 ParalympicsGB athletes.

Before Havas, they worked Engine. There, they worked with actress Lily James for Sky Mobile, launched Greene King’s new pale ale “Ice Breaker” and created work for the RAF.

This year, their comedy film "Mr Biscuit" was selected for the London Short Film Festival.

Jung von Matt London opened in 2023, one of the newest editions to the global Jung von Matt agency.

Why are we not talking about ad avoidance?

The topic came up in a few conversations last week, and it reminded me that we’re turning a blind eye to this existential threat to our industry. It’s like the dinosaurs looking up and seeing comets come crashing down into the ground, thinking, “Nah -- those are just some acorns falling from trees. Nothing to worry about.”

In some research, as many as 64% of adults in the U.S. actively try to avoid ads whenever possible.  I saw other reports stating that between 88%-96% of mobile users opt out of tracking on their phones.  Regardless of which numbers you subscribe to, the fact is, consumers are annoyed by and don’t appreciate advertising.

In the old days, the industry used the argument that advertising supported free access to content, but that’s now a fallacy. How many quality websites allow free access to their content anymore?  Most of the content is behind a paywall, or they provide you limited access before they lock it down. 

As an industry, we need to realize that our approach needs to change if we want to be a sustainable channel in the future.  We cannot grow if we only have access to 30% of the audience we are supposed to be delivering our messages to. 

As more of traffic online shifts to mobile apps, AI-based interfaces on the web, voice-based interfaces and video, we have a unique opportunity to revisit how we deliver advertising.  My hope, balanced from the perspective of both a consumer and a marketer, is that we identify ways to bring messages with higher attention capture, lower frequency, and more impactful integrations. 

For example, a page with an AI agent can have a display ad alongside the content to capture your attention when you are typing or engaging with the AI agent.  Limited space and a thoughtful rotation on that page would be less interruptive, but just intrusive enough to offer the brands a chance to get their message in front of the right audience. 

This could easily replace paid search, or paid search could become a nav-bar addition to that screen.  The more visible and impactful units could charge a premium, and you could even have the AI agent reference the ad as a personalized offer for the users in conversation.

This model creates a much more impactful, conversationally driven unit with visual elements. Brands would drool at the chance to have that sort of authentic approach. 

We need to take our heads out of the sand and start thinking of the ways to evolve the collective ad offering, or risk being bypassed in evolution. 

Consumers don’t hate advertising.  They just hate the way we do advertising today, and that is an opportunity -- even an invitation! -- for change.

Zales is trading tradition for trend. The retailer’s new "Own It" campaign targets Gen Z’s appetite for self-expression, hoping to spark loyalty at a time when jewelry sales -- and consumer confidence -- are both under pressure.

For decades, the jewelry business has been driven by occasions: engagements, birthdays, graduations. With "Own It," Zales is urging younger consumers to buy jewelry simply because they want to, not because the calendar says it’s time. The goal: to make everyday moments feel worthy of diamonds.

The launch comes as parent company Signet Jewelers pushes for a broader comeback. Consumers are curtailing discretionary spending, gold prices are soaring, and Gen Z faces mounting economic pressures, from student loan debt to new tariffs. Against that backdrop, Zales is expanding its assortment with trend-driven collections, including Stellar Allure’s modern lab-grown diamond designs and Whimly by Zales, offering lower prices and stackable, layer-friendly styles.

The new ads, created by Anomaly, are running across digital, social, and in-store channels. Zales says it’s also exploring mobile gaming, CTV, and interactive formats, with an emphasis on peer-to-peer recommendations through expanded influencer partnerships. The retailer is testing a "store of the future" concept as well, combining curated displays and digital tools to highlight two Gen Z priorities: self-serve experiences and personalization.

The campaign ties into a larger strategic shift at Signet. Following a 6% fourth-quarter sales decline, the company announced plans to move from a "banner" mindset to a brand-driven approach. "Brands build loyalty with emotional and engaging connections," said CEO J.K. Symancyk in a recent earnings call. "Banners are transactional — a static nameplate on the door."

Symancyk said Signet’s new model will consolidate merchandising and marketing, streamline leadership, and organize its portfolio into four customer groups. He believes increasing brand consideration by just five points could drive an additional $500 million in revenue.

For Zales, inspiring Gen Z to "own it" isn’t just about fresh styles — it’s a bet that redefining jewelry for everyday expression can help rekindle lasting brand loyalty.

Siding with AT&T, a federal appellate panel threw out a $57 million privacy fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission, ruling that the agency's move violated AT&T's right to a trial by jury.

“No one denies the Commission’s authority to enforce laws requiring telecommunications companies like AT&T to protect sensitive customer data,” 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stuart Duncan wrote in a 20-page decision.

“But the Commission must do so consistent with our Constitution’s guarantees of ... a jury trial,” Duncan added.

Judge Cory Wilson signed on to Duncan's opinion, but the third panelist, Judge Catharina Haynes, concurred only with the judgment.

The ruling comes in a battle that began during the first Trump administration, when the FCC -- then under Republican leadership -- proposed fining AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile for allegedly sharing customers' location data with third parties.

Specifically, the FCC said in a “notice of apparent liability” that the carriers sold access to geolocation data to aggregators that resold the information to outside companies.

The FCC initially proposed the fines in 2020 -- around two years after it came to light that a Missouri sheriff used geolocation data provided by Securus Technology to track other law enforcement officers, without court orders. Securus obtained the location data from the phone carriers. Around one year later, Vice Media's Motherboard detailed how a journalist was able to pay a “bounty hunter” $300 to track a phone's location to a neighborhood in Queens.

The major U.S. carriers have said they no longer sell location data.

Last year, the FCC followed through on the notice of apparent liability and fined AT&T around $57 million, Verizon around $47 million, and T-Mobile $92 million (including $12 million for Sprint, which merged with T-Mobile in 2020).

The agency voted 3-2 to impose the fines, with Republican commissioners Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington dissenting.

All three wireless carriers appealed the fines.

AT&T argued the penalty should be vacated for several reasons, including that the FCC imposed sanctions without proving the allegations in court.

The 5th Circuit agreed, noting that the Supreme Court ruled last year that defendants in civil securities fraud cases brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission were entitled to jury trials.

T-Mobile and Verizon have made similar arguments to different appellate courts -- the D.C. Circuit in T-Mobile's case, and the 2nd Circuit in Verizon's. Those cases remain pending.

Google harmed publishers and consumers by monopolizing key components of the market for online display ads, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Thursday.

“For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets,” U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema said in a 115-page ruling.

“This exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” she added.

The ruling came in a battle dating to January 2023, when the Justice Department and a coalition of states claimed Google “corrupted legitimate competition" by monopolizing markets connected to “open web display advertising” -- essentially meaning programmatic ads served on sites operated by newspapers and other online publishers.

Antitrust prosecutors alleged in their initial complaint that Google “corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control of the wide swath of high-tech tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, to facilitate digital advertising,” the complaint alleged.

The government sought monetary damages and a court order that would require Google to unwind its 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick and 2011 purchase of AdMeld.

Brinkema, who conducted a three-week trial last year, specifically found that Google monopolized the “publisher ad server market” and the “ad exchange market,” and also illegally tied its ad exchange to DFP (formerly DoubleClick for Publishers).

She dismissed a claim that Google monopolized the “adveritser ad network” market.

Brinkema noted in her ruling that a prosecution witness, economics professor Robin Lee, testified that in 2022, Google had a 91% share of the “worldwide publisher ad server market for open-web display advertising as measured by the number of impressions served.”

Google unsuccessfully argued that the prosecution's proposed market of “publisher ad servers for open-web display advertising” -- meaning display ads on sites operated by newspapers and other online publishers -- was too narrow. The company contended hat the publisher-related market should also include ads served on social media, streaming video ads and in-app ads.

Brinkema rejected that argument.

“The evidence in the record supports the conclusion that publisher ad servers for open-web display advertising constitute a distinct, relevant market because they are uniquely capable of performing ad-serving functions for websites, which are essential components of news, media, and other online publishers’ businesses,” she wrote.

“Organizations that publish primarily text-based news content online, such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, cannot monetize the primary content on their websites with instream video ads,” Brinkema continued.

“Nor can they feasibly forgo monetizing their websites and publish revenue-generating content only through alternative digital channels, such as via mobile apps or social media pages," she wrote.

Google's Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president for regulatory affairs, says the company will appeal.

“We disagree with the court’s decision regarding our publisher tools,” she stated. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”

The judge plans to hold a hearing in the future on potential remedies.

It's not known whether the Justice Department plans to ask Brinkema to force Google to divest DoubleClick and AdMeld.

Brinkema said in her ruling that the prosecution failed to prove that those acquisitions were anticompetitive, but also said both deals helped Google create a monopoly.

“Although these acquisitions helped Google gain monopoly power in two adjacent ad tech markets, they are insufficient, when viewed in isolation, to prove that Google acquired or maintained this monopoly power through exclusionary practices,” she wrote.

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), who has introduced antitrust legislation targeting large tech companies, praised the ruling.

“This verdict is an important win for consumers, small businesses and publishers,” Klobuchar stated Thursday. “For far too long, Google has used its dominance in online advertising to squeeze out competition and take revenue out of the pocket of publishers like local news organizations.”

Brinkema's ruling comes one year after a different jurist, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., found that Google violated antitrust law by arranging to serve as the default search engine on browsers operated by Apple and Mozilla, as well as on Android devices. Mehta is expected to hold a trial next week over remedies in that matter.

Hermès, the French company best known for $12,000 handbags, posted solid first-quarter sales gains — up 7% in constant currency overall and 11% in the U.S. — even as most direct competitors reported declines. It also addressed tariffs head-on, announcing a 10% U.S. price hike beginning in May to “fully offset” the impact of new tariffs from the Trump administration.

On the one hand, who cares? Hermès is a small brand in the $400 billion luxury sector. However, experts say the company’s first-mover honesty may offer direction for other marketers, both in luxury and mass categories.

Most brands are still dancing around the tariff issue. While many will simply raise prices and hope shoppers don’t notice, Hermès is being explicit — a move that may deepen trust at a time when greenwashing and "shrinkflation" have made consumers more skeptical.

“Brands have three choices,” says Neil Saunders, managing director at GlobalData, a retail analytics firm. “They can either take a hit on their margins, find ways to save costs elsewhere, or raise prices.”

Eventually, he tells Marketing Daily via email, “it is inevitable that part of the response will involve price increases.”

And like it or not, that will impact brand health. “It’s imperative for luxury retail brands to resource, discuss and consider their brand strategy as they consider their response to tariffs,” says Kassi Socha, director analyst for Gartner for Marketers. “CMOs that fortify their luxury brand positioning during this season will pull ahead, winning the wallet of the prestige consumer.”

She adds that CMOs at all brands — not just luxury — should be thinking price hikes through, defending marketing budgets, and striving for “consistent brand investment and its correlation to commercial growth or, at minimum, brand stability.”

Should more luxury brands follow? Maybe. “Under pressure to orchestrate profitable growth and realize cost optimizations, a luxury brand’s instinct during this moment may be to invest in short-term performance tactics,” Socha says in an email to Marketing Daily. But tactics like flash sales or aggressive lower-funnel marketing, while tempting, can’t replace long-term brand building.

Hermès is betting that wealthy customers aren’t overly concerned about price hikes -- and will simply accept them. It’s also true, says Saunders, that many of Hermès’ wealthiest shoppers are mobile enough to buy products overseas, in markets where prices may not rise as sharply.

Still, it’s too soon to tell what kind of emotional response tariffs -- global, political and messy -- might spark in shoppers. Customers happy to pay high prices for craftsmanship and quality might resent a political surcharge. Some brands may decide it’s smarter to market price increases as rational and fair, rather than pretending they’re invisible.

In a year when economic realities are colliding with brand dreams, the message may be this simple: Talk to your customers like they’re in on the plan, not like they’re in the dark.

The pandemic may be in the review mirror, but casual diners haven’t returned to dining on premises in restaurants in the in the numbers they once did over five years ago. According to the 2025 Off-Premises Restaurant Trends report published this week by the National Restaurant Association, delivery and takeout customers aren’t decreasing in numbers anytime soon.

The report found that nearly 75% of all restaurant traffic now happens “off-premises,” which means that three out of four customers are now eating restaurant meals in their own homes.

Unsurprisingly, two-thirds of Gen Z-ers and millennials say “takeout is essential to their lifestyle,” with nearly six in 10 getting takeout or drive-thru at least weekly. Over 60% are ordering off-premises even more than last year, with 47% of all adults picking up takeout from restaurants, coffee shops, snack places or delis at least once a week, 42% reporting use of a drive-thru weekly, and 37% of adults ordering delivery once a week.

"Off-premises dining has become a key revenue driver and an essential way to engage consumers," says Dr. Chad Moutray, chief economist at the National Restaurant Association. "It now accounts for a larger share of sales for 58% of limited-service and 41% of full-service operators compared with 2019—providing a critical path to restaurant resilience and growth despite ongoing economic pressures." 

Apparently QSRs' ramped-up use of deals over the past year has paid off. More than 80% of consumers reported using buy-one, get-one-free and other offers, combo meals or specials on delivery and takeout orders. And membership has its advantages: 65% of drive-thru users and more than 60% of takeout and delivery users say loyalty program membership affects where they order.

Mobile has taken over as the primary device for ordering, with 57% using a phone for pickup and delivery. And three-quarters of all delivery recipients said they “value tech-enabled ordering and payments.”

Where customers live makes a huge difference in pick-up and delivery: Urban consumers refer to delivery and takeout as “essential,” while 67% of rural consumers “wish they had more options.”

There was one area where most agreed: speed. Ninety-four percent said “speed is critical,” with delivery and take out, with over nine in 10 also citing customer service as a “top priority.”

Looking ahead at areas of potential opportunity for restaurants, more than 90% of respondents said they'd order a greater variety of items "if the food maintained on-premises quality during delivery," and, of those, more than 50% would pay more for “packaging that supported quality during transport.” Deals and tech will remain top of mind; nine out of 10 reported they would use limited-time app-only offers, and 50% of Gen Z-ers and 52% of millennials said they’d consider ordering from an AI-generated video assistant.

AI Brand Agent, an intelligent assistant that can analyze brand data and guidelines to generate custom insights, predict trends, and recommend content strategies tailored to each client's unique brand identity -- launched this week from Mod Op, a full-service digital marketing agency.

This launch is the first in a series specializing in specific tasks. Brand Agent changes the way creative teams at agencies access and apply the brand’s information about its products and services.

Predictive analysis will become the most interesting part of AI in advertising, especially for mobile. Eric Bertrand, CEO of Mod Op, says AI does not just automate processes -- it enhances human creativity and strategic thinking in ways that weren’t possible before.

The new Mod Op Brand Agent chat runs in a web-based user interface that only Mod Op employees can access. There is not an app, but the chat interface is an application. The trend will lead companies to take many of these services to mobile, similar to Google and Microsoft.

Google in early March introduced a feature called AI Mode in the mobile search app, which now appears in its desktop search engine. Last week it enabled multimodal search capabilities in the Google app for Android and iOS devices, combining visual and text inputs.

Turkish startup Boby.ai received $1.25 million to build AI-powered mobile apps from London Venture Partners. It is one of many companies that is gaining financing. 

Worldwide downloads of generative AI apps nearly reached 1.5 billion last year, according to Sensor Tower, and IAP revenue from those apps has grown considerably, from $9 million in 2021 to $1.27 billion in 2024.

ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and ByteDance’s Doubao were the most-downloaded apps in the category last year, per the report.

The two combined technologies — AI and mobile — will be used to capitalize on device and services for advertising, and a report published by Zibtek, a Utah-based custom software development company, estimated the duo to reach $251.1 billion by 2033, growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 28.6%.

Zibtek’s report suggests that 61% of businesses gain a competitive advantage using AI and mobile, and 59% see revenue growth mainly because AI drives predictive analysis, personalization, automation, and engagement. Using AI-enabled recommendation engines, Netflix and Spotify boost engagement rates of over 80%.

It’s interesting when thinking back to the turn of this century. Advertisers were beginning to talk about the year of mobile.

There was not just one “year of mobile” for advertising. The industry experienced significant prominence as the rise of smartphones and mobile internet access led to a surge in mobile ad spending in the early 2000s. That evolved to include in-app ads and other formats. 

We’re witnessing the same thing with AI. Reported use of AI increased in 2024. In the latest McKinsey survey, 78% of respondents said their organizations use AI in at least one business function, up from 72% in early 2024 and 55% in 2023.