Google is open to sharing more advertising data with publishers to address allegations of an illegal monopoly in digital advertising, according to an executive. Glenn Berntson, who is an engineering director at Google Ad Manager, mentioned this during the ongoing High Stakes Atlas trial in federal court in Virginia, where he testified as a witness for the defense.
“I think providing these detailed insights to publishers is a good idea,” Berntson stated under questioning from Justice Department attorneys. “The details are something we have to explore,” he added.
The Justice Department is arguing that Google should divest its main ad exchange, ADX, to foster fair competition and protect news publishers and advertisers who depend on it. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who has the authority to implement any relief measures, previously ruled that Google violated the Sherman Act by dominating the online ad server market while also controlling the ad exchange that connects buyers and sellers.
Berntson explained that Google’s ad server could provide insights on how and which display ads are served to users. The DOJ has also proposed that Google enhance the transparency of the auction process by sharing data, but Berntson noted that simply releasing the source code might not help publishers understand it better. Instead, he suggested Google could provide a clearer breakdown of the digital auction process. He acknowledged that larger publishers might still want access to the source code due to their greater resources.
Critics of Google, particularly news publishers, have long expressed concerns about the auction process for ad sales, which they feel lacks clarity and has led to losses as they struggle to understand their advertising choices.
The trial’s relief phase is expected to conclude soon this week. Google has indicated plans to appeal Judge Brinkema’s finding that it holds a monopoly in digital advertising.
A lawyer representing Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, mentioned that selling parts of Google’s ad business could disrupt technology and impact dependent businesses. Instead of breaking up, Google claims it has made its tools easier to use and more compatible with third-party applications.
In a notable moment during the trial, executive Tim Craycroft acknowledged that the company is having internal discussions about potentially selling part of its advertising business, echoing discussions from the previous year.
The implications of this case could pose a significant risk for Google, particularly following a recent anti-trust case focused on its search business. In that instance, Judge Amit Mehta dismissed a request to force a breakup of Google’s Chrome web browser and instead suggested that Google should share more search data with competitors.
