Google and the Justice Department met for the last time in an Alexandria, Virginia courtroom to debate the future of Google's online ad tech juggernaut.
In the closing arguments that lasted for about three hours, lawyers from each side Made its closing arguments before US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who is expected to rule on it by the end of 2024. If she declares Google's ad tech system a monopoly, the case will advance to a second trial for remedies — a process currently underway. A separate DC District Court case is ongoing over Google Search.
Many of the arguments were familiar to any Google test watcher. The DOJ argues that Google used a suite of ad tech products, specifically DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) and ADX Exchange. Empowered Site Owners And advertisers. Google counters that it faces competition from other sources should not do Cut deals with competitors. But closing statements found Brinkema, who had asked witnesses early in the trial to break down complex technical topics, pushed back from each side's arguments — this time with a solid grasp on the facts.
One market, or three?
One of the biggest questions from the test is how many markets Google actually serves. The government sees three separate ad markets that are dominated by Google: one for publisher ad servers, one for ad exchanges, and one for advertiser ad networks. Google says there is a single, two-sided marketplace of buyers and sellers for digital ads, which puts Google in competition with social media companies like Meta and TikTok.
Google's reference point is a 2018 Supreme Court precedent called Ohio v. American Express. The decision considered whether AmEx's policy, imposed on merchants, unfairly suppressed price competition. The court decided that there was a single market composed of merchants and credit card users, and the government needed to prove harm to both parties – a high standard to meet.
Government The case has been argued that this is not a fair comparison, and in closing arguments, Brinkema seemed to agree. “I read that AmEx “Maybe I should have filed the case more often than I should have,” Brinkema said during closing arguments from Google attorney Karen Dunn. “I feel like we could be dealing with a completely different system.” Are working.” Brinkema said that in the first case, he thought Google made “a very compelling argument” for AmEx comparison, but the more he read it, the less it imprinted on the matter.
Nevertheless, Brinkema asked why the government focused most of its attention during the trial on publishers and called advertising agency witnesses rather than advertisers. DOJ attorney Aaron Teitelbaum said that publishers' issues with Google (such as the frustrating relationship between DFP and AdX) were particularly good at exposing anti-competitive conduct that limited access to advertisers through Google's own ad network. Google Inc. originated from Google Inc., and advertising agencies – not their advertiser clients – were the ones who typically navigate Google's products.
He also asked how the DOJ would try to win if they got a single, two-sided market. Teitelbaum said that even in that scenario, the court could find direct evidence of monopoly power where Google does something it knows customers won't like – such as the unified pricing rule (UPR) that Publishers stopped By setting higher prices on Google's AdX compared to other servers. This is something that only a monopolist can do, he said.
refuse to deal
Google's second big legal weapon is a 2004 decision known as Verizon vs Trinco – which broadly stated that Verizon was not required to share its telecommunications network with AT&Ttrinco says that in most circumstances companies can refuse to deal with competitors. Google argues that its products are already interoperable with other ad tech services, and it needs to More That interoperability would make Google's advertiser customer base “community property” by law.
DOJ has responded trinco It's not about dealing with your own customers. “Every single example of conduct is Google versus its customers,” Teitelbaum said, pointing to instances where Google removed options for users in its advertising tools. But Brinkema seemed unsure about that argument, saying AdX in particular seems to be in direct competition with other ad exchanges, and the way the DOJ tried to argue it was not customer-facing. Used to be.
What about those deleted chats?
As Google makes its arguments, it is facing one accusation after another: One is a claim that it deliberately deleted chat messages that could have made it look bad. Google says most of the messages were just casual water-cooler conversations, but it acknowledged that they included some substantive business discussions. The DOJ wants Brinkema to draw adverse inferences wherever it has doubt about what the deleted messages said — in other words, assume the deleted messages will look bad on Google's case.
Google's Dunn accused the government of cherry-picking ominous-sounding lines from Google executives in internal documents. Dunn argued that when read with full context, some show people debating topics where they admit they have little expertise. They can also demonstrate that Google welcomes employees sharing ideas over email.
But Brinkema said Dunn was “getting too close to the very important argument raised by the plaintiffs”: the fact that no one really knows In some cases what the officers were thinking as they chatted away. “I think you're in a bit of a situation [of] Dangerous area,” he warned.