Actually I think it nicely highlights the contradictions inherent in Google's monopolistic position. The user clearly expressed an intent to browse "privately" in one Google product - Chrome. The fact that this doesn't then completely block Google Analytics or forward the preference for privacy to other Google properties is a choice that conveniently aligns with Google's ad business but ignores the intent of what the user is trying to do.
Alternatively, this is working as intended since Google isn't acting as a monopoly by tying disparate products together. You get the same experience in chrome incognito as Firefox incognito.
Google runs both Chrome and Analytics. And they do not warn explicitly that other Google products may store the history even in the private mode. Which some may interpret that Google lies when claiming about their private mode. So the case may have merit in theory.
The confusion is that google makes chrome. Plain and simple. A feature (incognito) with a bypass (analytics) is a non-feature since they are both done by the same company. So the practical solution is for them to be not done by the same company.
If you start from the axiom that Google should be broken up, this is a reasonable conclusion. But punishing a company for keeping separate products separate would actually undermine most anti-monopoly law.
They are not separate in the monopoly sense though, are they ? Chrome, presumably a cost center, exists only to facilitate google's other businesses. Nobody has punished google for keeping products separate. Quite the contrary. It has always been about extending dominance in one segment to an unrelated one. So google could say that they treat all trackers equally in the incognito mode, and that would be correct, but if google analytics is the revenue center, and the cost center is giving it a free pass, the argument that other trackers can also bypass incognito seems weak.
