Google has completed its defense in the Department of Justice’s lawsuit concerning its advertising technology, arguing that the DOJ’s claims are unfounded.
Despite supportive testimonies from Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Milgrom, it remains possible that Google’s case has weaknesses.
Here are some key points:
1. “Duty to deal” argument
- Google’s stance: Google contends that it is not obligated to share its ad tech tools or platforms with competitors, as U.S. antitrust laws do not mandate such sharing.
- Potential gap: The DOJ might argue that although there is no explicit “duty to deal” under current law, Google’s overwhelming presence in the digital ad market forces advertisers and publishers to rely on its tools. This reliance could support claims that Google’s practices restrict competition by creating barriers for smaller players, despite the lack of a formal sharing requirement.
2. Narrow market definition
- Google’s stance: Google argues that the DOJ’s market definition is too restrictive, focusing solely on “open web display advertising” rather than including a wider range of ad formats and markets.
- Potential gap: Google highlights competition from other digital ad platforms like Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft. However, the DOJ could argue that Google dominates the specific field of open web display ads. A narrower market definition that illustrates Google’s dominance could bolster the DOJ’s antitrust case. The court’s decision on this market definition will be crucial to the DOJ’s argument.
3. Defunct practices
- Google’s stance: Google claims that many of the contested practices, except for the Uniform Pricing Rules (UPR), are no longer in use, weakening the DOJ’s accusations.
- Potential gap: The DOJ may argue that even if such practices are obsolete, they may have had lasting effects on market dynamics. Historical practices like dynamic revenue or reserve price optimization could have entrenched Google’s dominance, limiting competitors’ growth and resulting in diminished competition.
4. Self-serving justifications for integration
- Google’s stance: Google argues its integrated tools benefit both advertisers and publishers by providing a safer, more cost-effective, and efficient platform.
- Potential gap: The DOJ may counter that this integration could also be viewed as self-serving and exclusionary. Integrating Google’s ad tech stack might hinder third-party companies from offering competitive services, locking users into Google’s ecosystem and raising barriers for competitors.
5. Control over the ad ecosystem
- Google’s stance: Google maintains that publishers and advertisers wield control over ad transactions, with many options for utilizing different ad tech tools.
- Potential gap: The DOJ could argue that Google’s significant market presence effectively limits meaningful alternatives. This dominance may compel publishers and advertisers to use Google’s tools, creating a de facto monopoly in certain parts of the ad tech market.
6. Competitive landscape
- Google’s stance: Google points to competition from other tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft as evidence of a competitive ad tech environment.
- Potential gap: The DOJ could argue that the competition Google references occurs in adjacent markets, such as social media or e-commerce advertising. Despite competition elsewhere, Google might still maintain a monopolistic presence in the open web display ads market.
7. Impact on consumers
- Google’s stance: Google positions its practices as consumer-friendly, focused on reduced fees and enhanced ad performance.
- Potential gap: The DOJ might emphasize the broader effects of reduced competition, such as potential long-term price increases for advertisers, limited options for publishers, and lower innovation. They may argue that even if short-term costs are reduced, market dominance could harm consumers and businesses in the future.
Google’s unknown fate
While Google is steadfast in its defense, asserting it is not a monopoly, the DOJ may successfully argue that Google’s strategies, particularly in specific markets like open web display ads, have anti-competitive outcomes.
The case hinges on how effectively the DOJ can demonstrate that Google’s past and ongoing actions create entry barriers, limit competition, and ultimately disadvantage consumers or the market.
About the author
Anu Adegbola has been the Paid Media Editor of Search Engine Land since 2024, with a coverage focus on paid search, paid social, retail media, video, and more. Starting her career in 2008, Anu has led digital marketing campaigns emphasizing strategy building, maximizing ROI, and encouraging efficiency through inspired leadership across various sectors.
Outside of her editing role, she is the founder of the PPC networking event PPC Live and hosts the weekly podcast PPCChat Roundup. Anu is also an international speaker, having presented at numerous conferences worldwide.
