Google’s Tech Empire is on an increasingly unstable ground after losing two antitrust laws within a year.
A federal judge on Thursday determined that Google had an illegal monopoly on advertising technology. It’s only eight months after another judge discovered that the tech giant monopolized online searches and violated antitrust laws.
When the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks to part ways, the two sides are set to meet again in court next week for a trial over search case relief.
“This is a huge blow to Google,” said Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, an antitrust law firm. “We can’t avoid that conclusion.”
“That pillar of power on the Internet and the adjacent ecosystem surrounding the Internet are declared illegal and have serious clouds about their future,” he added.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Thursday that Google dominated two markets in the ad technology sector. Advertising technology is used to connect publishers and advertisers online to fill the ad space.
Google has monopolized the market that provides a market that connects publishers and advertisers, known as ad exchanges, and has discovered a market that is known as ad exchanges.
However, it is not illegal to monopolize the market in its own right. The judge found that Google violated the Antimonopoly Act by enacting an anti-competitive policy that allowed Google to tie its ad technology products together and gain and maintain its monopoly.
“Google will fight this, but it’s clearly a gut punch and they’ll have to go back to the drawings to see the adjustments to their business model depending on how the appeal process looks.”
“I don’t think that will structurally change their business model, but that’s clearly a sign that they have to adjust their advertising strategies,” he added.
Google claims a partial victory, pointing to Brinkema’s decision that online advertisers have no separate markets and that Google’s acquisition of advertising technology is not anti-competitive.
This could be useful for Google, according to former Federal Trade Commission Chairman William Kovasic.
“We tend to ease mitigation measures rather than laying the foundation for bold treatments,” he said.
“At the same time, this is the second time in a short period. In fact, the court, who is a thoughtful judge in both cases, found that they had monopoly and used it improperly,” he continued.
The tech giant will appeal the “another half” of the decision, said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulation.
“We do not agree with the court’s decision regarding publisher tools,” she said in a statement Thursday. “I choose Google because publishers have many choices and advertising technology tools are simple, affordable and effective.”
Google will appeal the decision in a search case where US District Judge Amit Mehta finds that by entering into an exclusive agreement between device manufacturers and browsers, it maintains its monopoly on online searches illegally.
However, before appealing, Google will have to once again compete with the DOJ in court. This time we’re looking at remedies. The relief hearing is set to last three weeks, and Mehta had previously said he intends to take control by August.
The government asked the judge to force Google to sell Chrome. Management of browser tech companies is a hindering effort to open the market. If this cannot suppress Google’s monopoly, DOJ suggests that Android will also split up.
It was initially unclear whether the new administration would comply with the demands for the DOJ to dissolve after President Trump appeared skeptical of such a move last fall, suggesting that China could empower him.
Still, Trump’s DOJ reaffirmed last month that he was about to split Google and Chrome.
Google argues that the government’s proposals go far beyond the parameters of the case and risks hurting consumers and innovation.
On Monday of Trial Pre-Trial Filing, he emphasized that the underlying code for both Chrome and Android is “deeply intertwined and dependent on Google’s core infrastructure.”
“The goal of results-oriented is to force consumers, browser developers and sellers on Android mobile devices to use rival search engines.
The two cases for Google are separate, but they can affect each other, especially since both are heading towards the treatment stage.
“I think there may be some effort in the search case, but the subsequent efforts should come up with solutions for the courts to consider what happened in the AD Tech case,” Kovacic pointed out.
Jariel Rendell, a partner at Jenner & Block, who previously served as an attorney general’s assistant at the DOJ’s antitrust division, suggested that a pair of Google’s decisions would boost the department’s “confidence and resolution.”
“For the first time, the anti-trust division sued the same company in two different courts on two different sets of two different anti-trust violations, and litigated both cases simultaneously,” he said in a statement to the Hill. “And the division won both.”
“Despite resource constraints, they are now better positioned and more encouraging to take on even bigger antitrust challenges,” added Rendell.
Beyond Google’s two cases, DOJ and FTC have posed several well-known challenges for major tech companies, including Amazon, Apple and Meta over the past few years.
The MetaTrial began earlier this week, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg standing up for three days to answer questions about his company’s acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp.
“We’re adding to the overhang what Google, Meta, Apple and Amazon are facing with the Beltway,” Ives said of Google’s decision. “The walls are caves. Strong has become stronger with big technology, but there is a regulatory headwind.
“It’s not just about paying fines,” he added. “They need to fine-tune some of their business models and open them up to third parties, and obviously there may be an impact there.”
