People want the Olympics to lose its fizz. Scientists and public health experts think that the Olympics should drop Coca-Cola as a sponsor, reports Wired. The soda giant is the Olympics’ oldest friend, sponsoring the event since back when the drink still had a certain white powder in its ingredients list.

It’s a huge sponsorship deal. The association with the Olympic brand name costs Coca-Cola around USD 20 mn every year. Regardless, these experts believe the partnership should come to a stop, but aren’t holding their breath for understanding from the International Olympic Committee. They reason that the fittest people on the planet should not be promoting products with proven negative impacts on public health.

What’s wrong with Cola? Experts have identified a direct link between sugary beverages and Type 2 diabetes, an affliction that affects around 462 mn people worldwide. The kicker? Another large sponsor of the games is Sanofi, a pharma company that actively researches diabetes — talk about mixed messages. According to Robert Lustig, a pediatric neuroendocrinologist, even though all sugary beverages are harmful, “Coca-Cola’s behavior is among the most egregious.”

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is vocally campaigning against the beverage company, arguing that the partnership with Coca-Cola “is undermining [the Olympics’] noble vision to use sports to build a better world.” They are among the 66 organizations in the Kick Big Soda Out of Sport international campaign. “We’re really excited for consumers around the world and probably lawmakers who are seeing this to think about the unhealthy impacts of Coca-Cola on both human health and on our planet,” says Nancy Fink, the campaign manager at CSPI.

Banning an Olympic sponsor has happened before. Once upon a time, the Olympics were sponsored by tobacco companies. Cigarette ads were part of the games since the birth of the games in 1896 — a partnership that lasted almost a century. Campaigns created in the 1980s were successful in stopping these sponsorships, so there may be hope that sugary beverages are next in line.

Google has been hit with yet another antitrust ruling — A federal judge has decided that Google is engaged in illegal practices to suppress competition in web searches, the Washington Post reports. This is the second time within a year that Google has been labeled an illegal monopoly, with the previous ruling targeting its Android app store.

Google’s footprint is massive. The tech giant has a grip on 82% of the search market, and operates other ubiquitous products like Gmail, YouTube, and Google Maps. It’s also got Chrome — the most popular web browser, with a market share of 61.8% — under its belt, and Android OS, which powers over 3 bn phones.

Google’s monopolistic practices aren’t limited to web searches. The company has also been scrutinized for allegedly manipulating the market by acquiring rivals through anticompetitive mergers and pressuring publishers and advertisers to use its ad technology, earning them two lawsuits from the FTC.

They also can track your movements. Google’s CAPTCHA technology — designed to block bots — is actually tracking your behavior, from cursor movements to browsing history, across various websites.

Here’s where things get a bit wild. One possible change we might see following this ruling is a bunch of new search engines popping up. If Google has to share its search technology or data as a result of the injunction, we could end up with search engines tailored to different needs — think kid-friendly searches, or ones that prioritize privacy. Some rivals like DuckDuckGo and Bing have failed to take on Google, but opening its tech might open the doors for new players.

One of these players is our dear ol’ Apple. Right now, Google pays Apple a hefty sum to be the default search engine on all Apple devices through Safari — if this deal gets shaken up, Apple could potentially step up with its own search engine.

Things might go down, split, or even up. Ad prices might drop if more search engines join the mix, breaking Google’s hold over the ad market and potentially making things cheaper for us online. There’s also the possibility that Google could be split into smaller entities, meaning that Chrome, search, and Android will be their own separate companies. Plus, if Google’s services are divided, it might mean better privacy for users, since Google wouldn’t be pooling all our data in one place.

And let’s not forget about the Android app store. This ongoing case might lead to changes that will allow users to install apps from other sources onto their devices, opening up competitive pricing for digital purchases.

Tags: