Google has mostly transitioned to HTTPS which makes network packet injection/sniffing useless on their sites. Since it's no longer their problem, why do they need to take a stand?
If Verizon owns your phone (literally, in the case of their edge program), all they need to do to inject tracking into HTTP packets is install a trusted root cert for themselves on your phone. One might argue that's not even wrong for them to do.
Also, Verizon and ISP's in general don't need access to unencrypted HTTPS data to track you. HTTP is an application layer protocol (top of OSI model), but your ISP can track you all the way down to the physical layer (bottom of OSI model). They still have all the metadata of your packets, even if they don't have the unencrypted content of them, because they literally own the wires/spectrum that your device used to send data. That means they can see when you use the Internet, what IP addresses you go to, how much content you send to each, etc etc. I don't think I need to explain to HN how much you can extract from metadata.
My point is that Verizon is not playing the game of injecting the actual ads you see. They inject tracking codes, or track you in other ways, but they still sell that data to the same advertisers who benefit from ad injectors. (Because ultimately, an ad is an ad, no matter how it got in your computer, and if you click it, the advertiser stands to benefit.)
Google should take a stand because the problem of ad injection is a symptom of the bigger problem, which is messing with user traffic in general.
Perhaps the solution is breaking up control of the OSI model. The companies running your cable should not be the same ones servicing you in the application layer.
