Google and the DOJ make their final arguments in the ad tech monopoly case

Google and the Department of Justice met 1 last clip successful an Alexandria, Virginia courtroom to statement the early of Google’s online advertisement tech juggernaut.

Over astir 3 hours of closing arguments, attorneys for each side delivered their past arguments earlier US District Court judge Leonie Brinkema, who is expected to norm connected it by the extremity of 2024. If she declares Google’s advertisement tech strategy a monopoly, the lawsuit will advancement to a 2nd proceedings for remedies — a process presently playing retired successful a abstracted DC District Court lawsuit complete Google search.

Many of the arguments were acquainted to immoderate Google proceedings watcher. The DOJ argues Google utilized a suite of advertisement tech products, peculiarly Doubleclick For Publishers (DFP) and the AdX exchange, to strong-arm tract owners and advertisers. Google counters that it faces title from different sources and shouldn’t person to trim deals pinch competitors. But the last statements fto Brinkema, who spent the trial’s early days asking witnesses to break down analyzable method topics, push backmost connected each side’s arguments — this clip pinch a coagulated bid of the facts.

One market, aliases three?

One of the trial’s biggest questions is really galore markets Google really useful in. The authorities sees 3 abstracted advertisement markets that Google dominates: 1 for patient advertisement servers, 1 for advertisement exchanges, and 1 for advertiser advertisement networks. Google says there’s a single, two-sided marketplace of buyers and sellers for integer ads, putting Google successful title pinch societal media companies for illustration Meta and TikTok.

Google’s reference constituent is simply a 2018 Supreme Court precedent called Ohio v. American Express. The ruling considered whether a argumentation AmEx imposed connected merchants unfairly suppressed value competition. The tribunal decided that location was a azygous marketplace comprised of merchants and in installments paper users, and it required the authorities to beryllium harm connected some sides — a higher modular to meet.

The government in this lawsuit has based on this isn’t a reasonable comparison, and successful closing arguments, Brinkema seemed to agree. “I’ve publication that AmEx lawsuit much times that I astir apt should have,” Brinkema said during Google counsel Karen Dunn’s closing arguments. “We’re dealing pinch a wholly different set-up, it seems to me.” Brinkema said that earlier successful the case, she thought Google made “a very charismatic argument” for its AmEx comparison, but the much she publication it, the little it mapped onto this case.

Still, Brinkema asked why the authorities focused astir of its attraction during the proceedings connected publishers and called advertisement agency witnesses alternatively than advertisers themselves. DOJ counsel Aaron Teitelbaum said publishers’ issues pinch Google (like frustrating ties betwixt DFP and AdX) were peculiarly bully astatine highlighting anticompetitive conduct, that stemmed from Google’s entree to advertisers done its advertisement network, and that advertisement agencies — not their advertiser clients — were the ones typically navigating Google’s products.

She besides asked really the DOJ would effort to triumph if she finds a single, two-sided market. Teitelbaum said that moreover successful that scenario, the tribunal tin find nonstop grounds of monopoly powerfulness wherever Google does thing it knows customers won’t for illustration — for illustration Unified Pricing Rules (UPR) that prevented publishers from mounting higher prices connected Google’s AdX than connected different servers. That’s thing only a monopolist could do, he said.

Refusal to deal

Google’s 2nd large ineligible limb is simply a 2004 ruling known arsenic Verizon v. Trinko — which said, very broadly, that Verizon wasn’t required to stock its telecommunications web pinch AT&T. Trinko says nether astir circumstances, companies tin garbage to woody pinch competitors. Google argues that its products are already interoperable pinch different advertisement tech services, and requiring more of that interoperability by rule would make Google’s advertiser customer guidelines into “community property.”

The DOJ has retorted that Trinko isn’t astir dealing pinch your ain customers. “Every azygous lawsuit of behaviour is Google versus its customers,” Teitelbaum said — pointing to instances wherever Google removed options for users successful its advertisement tools. But Brinkema seemed unsure of that argument, saying AdX successful peculiar seems to beryllium successful nonstop title pinch different advertisement exchanges, and is not customer-facing successful the measurement the DOJ tried to argue.

What astir those deleted chats?

As Google makes its arguments, it’s being dogged by an accusation that’s followed it into courtroom aft courtroom: a declare that it deliberately deleted chat messages that could person made it look bad. Google says astir messages were simply casual water-cooler conversation, but it’s conceded immoderate included substantive business discussions. The DOJ wants Brinkema to tie an adverse conclusion wherever she’s successful uncertainty astir what deleted messages said — in different words, presume the deleted messages would person looked bad for Google’s case.

Dunn, from Google, accused the authorities of cherry-picking ominous-sounding lines from Google executives successful soul documents. When publication pinch afloat context, Dunn argued, immoderate simply show group riffing connected topics wherever they admit they person small expertise. They could moreover show that Google welcomed labor sharing thoughts complete email.

But Brinkema said that Dunn was “getting adjacent to the very important statement plaintiffs person raised”: the truth that nobody really knows what executives were reasoning successful immoderate cases, because those chats are gone. “I deliberation you’re successful a small spot [of] vulnerable territory,” she warned.