The DOJ’s antitrust trial against Google’s ad tech business has reached its climax, with both sides delivering closing arguments in a case that could redefine the digital advertising landscape. As U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema deliberates, the stakes are high for Google and the future of programmatic advertising.
Google has been fighting an uphill battle with regulators for years over its alleged market dominance in several areas of its business, such as search.
But now their ad tech business is under the DOJ’s microscope. The DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google’s ad tech stack in early 2023, and both sides made their closing arguments yesterday afternoon.
Prosecutors from the DOJ and lawyers for Big G summarized their arguments from the heated 14-day trial to convince the U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema to either break up Google’s alleged ad tech monopoly or respect them as a big player in a competitive advertising Game of Thrones.
If you have followed the case, the closing arguments didn’t stray far from either side’s earlier talking points. The DOJ, represented by Aaron Teitelbaum, argued that Google illegally dominated the online advertising market through anticompetitive practices. Google’s defense, led by Karen Dunn, countered the DOJ’s claims and presented a different view of digital advertising—one where Google is one of many big fish in an enormous sea of data, impressions, and revenue.
Who will Judge Brinkema favor? Right now, it’s hard to tell. She had probing questions for both sides of the argument.
DOJ’s Closing Argument
Aaron Teitelbaum, representing the DOJ, argued that Google created a monopoly through its ad tech services, effectively rigging the digital advertising ecosystem to its advantage.
Teitelbaum asserted that “Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist,” emphasizing the company’s control over crucial markets that “make the free and open internet possible.” He contended that Google linked its products together in a way that made it nearly impossible for publishers and advertisers to use alternatives, creating a stranglehold on the industry.
According to the DOJ’s argument, Google has an alleged 87% market share in ad-selling, which they claimed allowed the company to capture an outsized portion of each transaction at the expense of news publishers and website owners.
Teitelbaum pointed to specific anticompetitive practices, such as the integration of Google’s diverse technologies, which he argued benefited the company at the expense of businesses relying on its services. Google’s integration of its technologies left publishers with no choice but to use its tools AdX and DFP (DoubleClick for Publishers), as they are interdependent and lack viable substitutes.
During his presentation, Teitelbaum faced probing questions from U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema. First, she questioned if there were any better products for publishers and ad agencies to choose from. Teitelbaum replied that plenty of better products phased out due to Google’s alleged monopolistic practices. “They want to use a better service, but they can’t,” said Teitelbaum.
The judge also questioned why the DOJ did not present testimony from advertisers to support their claims. Teitelbaum responded that the primary users of Google’s tools are ad agencies rather than advertisers directly.
Google’s Defense
For the tech behemoth’s argument, Dunn characterized Google’s conduct as “a story of innovation in response to competition,” arguing that the company’s actions have led to decreased prices, increased advertising expenditures, and improved quality in the industry.
Dunn challenged the government’s interpretation of antitrust law, asserting that the DOJ failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its case. She emphasized the competitive nature of the ad tech market, pointing to emerging players like social media platforms and the growing market share of companies such as Amazon, Meta, and TikTok.
Google’s defense also relied heavily on legal precedents, particularly the 2018 Ohio v. American Express case. However, this strategy was met with skepticism from Judge Brinkema, who interrupted Dunn to state, “We’re dealing with a completely different setup” compared to the American Express case.
Throughout her questioning, Judge Brinkema demonstrated a critical stance towards both parties. She questioned how publishers’ feedback about being locked into Google’s ad products isn’t proof of unique demand, which could suggest anticompetitive behavior.
Despite these challenges, Dunn maintained that publishers’ complaints about Google’s ad products reflected a desire for similar integration capabilities with rival ad servers as those provided by Google’s software.
Judge Brinkema will deliver her ruling in the coming months. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for Google’s ad tech business and the broader digital advertising industry. If found to have undermined competition, the company could be required to divest significant portions of its ad tech assets.