Dec 18, 2020

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

> 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.

The AGs of 10 states disagree with you.

Dec 18, 2020

I'd encourage you to read the Attorneys General allegations by searching for 'amp' in the link shared (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...)

Dec 18, 2020

The attorneys general case led by Texas [1] asserts that Google created AMP so that Google could stop "header bidding" (which subjects them to competition):

> To respond to the threat of header bidding, Google created Accelerated Mobile Pages (“AMP”), a framework for developing mobile web pages, and made AMP essentially incompatible with JavaScript and header bidding.

1.https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...