The US Department of Justice emerged victorious in its antitrust lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of monopolizing the advertising technology sector. This judgment follows a similar antitrust defeat for Google in its Search case, indicating that the tech giant’s anti-competitive actions “significantly harmed” both publishers and online users.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema stated, “The plaintiffs have demonstrated that Google has intentionally engaged in a series of anti-competitive behaviors to acquire and retain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising. For over a decade, Google has linked its publisher ad server and ad exchange through contractual agreements and technological ties, which allowed the company to build and maintain its monopoly in these markets.”
Judge Brinkema found Google guilty under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act but rejected the claim that Google held a monopoly in the ad network market.
Reflecting Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling in the Search case, Judge Brinkema criticized Google for its failure to retain internal communications, referencing an internal messaging system that “removed records of employee chats.” Despite indicating that this “might be punishable,” the court did not impose sanctions on Google in this instance as it based its decision on the available testimony and evidence.
The Verge sought a comment from Google but did not receive an immediate response.
Over a span of three weeks, the DOJ asserted that Google unlawfully monopolized three distinct markets within the ad tech arena: those for publisher ad tools, advertiser ad networks, and the ad exchanges that facilitate transactions. They also alleged that Google unlawfully linked its publisher ad server and ad exchange, breaching antitrust laws. According to the government, this enabled Google to secure monopoly profits at the cost of publishers and advertisers, resulting in a diminished experience with limited alternatives.
In contrast, Google argued that the government’s perspective on the market was artificial and lacked grounding in reality. According to Google, its tools aid publishers and advertisers in generating revenue, and its presence across various market segments enhances consumer experience. Google maintained that its actions are driven by valid business reasons and accused the government of attempting to dictate its business operations.
This decision arises as Google and the DOJ prepare to address the remedies phase of the search trial in another federal court in DC. In this instance, under the Biden administration, the DOJ proposed a breakup of Google, suggesting the separation of its Chrome browser and requiring it to syndicate its search results.
