States bring action against Google under federal and state antitrust laws [pdf]
>211. Google falsely told publishers that adopting AMP would enhance load times, but Google employees knew that AMP only improves the [redacted] and AMP pages can actually [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]. In other words, the ostensible benefits of faster load times for cached AMP version of webpages were not true for publishers that designed their web pages for speed. Some publishers did not adopt AMP because they knew their pages actually loaded faster than AMP pages.<p>Vindication for everybody pointing out that amp pages don't actually load faster, they were just incompatible with things that commonly made sites load slower.<p>>212. Google also [redacted] <i>of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one second delays</i> in order to give Google AMP a [redacted]  [redacted] slows down header bidding, which Google uses to turn around and denigrate header bidding for being too slow.<p>Seems damning. (emphasis mine)<p>Wonder what all the redacted is.<p>Also glad to see that google's preferring of amp sites in searches is going to get them in trouble, as that was basically the primary complaint I had with it. AMP pages would show up in searches for dynamic content, despite its restriction of static pages