By Marty Swant • October 1, 2024 •
<img width="1030" height="579" src="https://digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/09/computer-google-ad-digiday.png?w=1030&h=579&crop=1" alt decoding="async" fetchpriority="high"/>
Ivy Liu
After three weeks in federal court docket, two dozen witnesses and hundreds of displays, the bulk of the U.S. vs Google ad-tech antitrust trial has wrapped until closing arguments, that are expected in leisurely November. There’s also another wild card peaceable in play: How everything will likely be viewed by the correct lens of the court docket.
Taking space in U.S. District Court docket for the Eastern District of Virginia, the trial presided by U.S. Occupy Leonie Brinkema took upright half as long as expected. On the other hand, it was once peaceable packed with hundreds of high-profile testimony and moments of court docket drama. Some industry insiders also felt a sense of vindication as proof from the past decade came to light. One examine, Stephanie Layser, also wrote on LinkedIn that testifying even felt “cathartic.”
Whereas there are likely heaps of classes to be realized from ad-tech’s month below the microscope, some hope the trial will assist others in truth feel more cushty with sharing issues without anxiety of reprisal and overall foster a more clear ecosystem.
A note serve at the DOJ’s case
The Justice Division alleges Google has a “trifecta of monopolies” across the publisher ad server market, the ad change market and the advertiser ad community market. According to the DOJ, these monopolies maintain allowed the wide to manipulate now not upright the competition, nonetheless also to manipulate customers and the tips while harming publishers, advertisers and rival ad tech companies.
Proving these charges requires first getting the court docket to agree that Google has a monopoly over the three markets in interrogate and also proving Google illegally susceptible its dominance to spoil the groups in interrogate. The DOJ has also introduced a fourth claim that Google engaged in unlawful behavior by tying its publisher ad server to its ad change product.
Publishers represented during the trial included most unique and used execs from Gannett, Information Corp, The Day after day Mail and Vox Media — with some answering questions on how they tried (and failed) to wean themselves off of Google. In the meantime, other proof came from emails and audio recordings the set aside publishers expressed a vary of frustrations with their inability to change to picks or wrest away preserve watch over from Google’s merchandise.
Ad-tech testimony desirous about the challenges of competing with Google, with execs representing main gamers from The Trade Desk, Magnite, Pubmatic, AppNexus and Equativ. Whereas other consultants included company execs and economists, other witnesses came from Google itself, with both most unique and used execs called by both the DOJ and the defendant.
Google’s defense and the correct landscape
When weighing the proof, the court docket will even gain in mind other antitrust conditions — both past and most unique. Exquisite consultants exhibit U.S. Occupy Brinkema will likely watch the fresh ruling by U.S. Occupy Amit Mehta in the Google search trial taking space in United States District Court docket for the District of Columbia.
Google hopes to bolster its defense with case legislation from the past, admire the Supreme Court docket’s 2018 ruling in Ohio vs. American Negate. Whereas it ruled bank card holders and retailers weren’t two separate markets, Google desires the court docket to think of the ad-tech industry as a single market rather than publishers, advertisers and ad-tech companies every comprising their gain ecosystem. On the other hand, some correct consultants don’t think the Amex decision acquired’t essentially apply to the Google case because the ad-tech ecosystem doesn’t maintain the same community outcomes as the bank card market.
Google has tried to widen the market of initiate web display ads to include everything from social media and streaming audio to CTV. On the other hand, some correct consultants think Brinkema would possibly possibly maybe aspect with the DOJ and judge on a more narrow market definition. Most two-sided platforms also don’t maintain a single simultaneous transaction market, popular Roger Alford, an antitrust legislation professor at Notre Dame.
“I don’t think which it’s likely you’ll maybe mumble that the relationship with publishers and publisher brokers is the same relationship between advertisers and advertiser brokers,” Alford, who authored a 2020 article about Ohio v. Amex, advised Digiday. “The two-sided market argument was once now not bought by Occupy Mehta [in the Google search trial] and I don’t think it’ll be bought by the resolve in this case.”
Alford, who labored in the DOJ’s antitrust division from 2017-2019, also is consulting with the Texas in a separate antitrust case against Google introduced by a neighborhood of direct attorneys general. “This is in truth about the procedure forward for the free and initiate Internet,” he mentioned. “If we’re now not going to are living in an international the set aside we’re behind paywalls,