The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google on Monday concluded the tech giant's second antitrust case in two years, as the company seeks to fend off allegations of monopoly in advertising technology.
After a relatively short two-week trial in September, the two sides reconvened for closing arguments in U.S. District Judge Leonie Brynma's courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, presenting conflicting visions of how ad tech functions and Google's role. presented.
“This case is about two different realities,” said Justice Department attorney Julia Tarver Wood.
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, focuses on tools used by website publishers and advertisers to buy and sell advertising space online.
The Department of Justice identified three distinct markets: one where publishers sell advertising space, one where advertisers buy and run ads, and one that brings publishers and advertisers together. The agency claims that Google dominates all three markets.
“Google has become a monopoly once, twice, three times,” Justice Department attorney Aaron Teitelbaum said Monday.
The government claims that the tech giant has achieved a dominant position by eliminating competitors through acquisitions and using that advantage to force more publishers and advertisers to use its services. are.
Meanwhile, Google argues that there is a two-sided market between publishers and advertisers that goes far beyond online advertising and includes advertising in apps, social media, and connected TV.
Within this market, the tech giant says it faces stiff competition from the likes of Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and TikTok.
Google lawyer Karen Dunn said going against Google would mean overturning Supreme Court precedent. He argued that the Justice Department's efforts to force Google to do business with rival companies contradict the 2004 Verizon v. Trinco Supreme Court decision.
She also pointed to the 2018 Ohio v. American Express decision, in which the court ruled that the credit card industry consists of a single, two-sided market.
Brynma seemed skeptical of that argument, suggesting that Google's lawsuit appears to be a “totally different setting.” But she also pushed back against the Justice Department's claims about three distinct markets in ad tech.
The case went to trial after Google submitted a $2.3 million check in June to cover potential damages, and a judge will ultimately make a ruling.
The ruling in the ad tech case could be crucial for Google, which suffered billions in losses after a federal judge found in August that the company maintained an illegal monopoly over online search.
The Justice Department has asked the judge in the search case to order Google to sell its Chrome business, arguing that Google's ownership and control of the browser is hindering efforts to open the market.
Kent Walker, Google's chief legal officer and president of international affairs, called the potential breakup a “surprising proposal” that goes far beyond the lawsuit's ruling and would destroy Google's products. insisted.
In both cases, the tech giants have come under intense scrutiny for their handling of internal communications.
Google faces accusations that it destroyed relevant evidence through its practice of automatically deleting instant messages and relying on employees to turn off the feature in the face of litigation. Some say the tech giant took excessive advantage of legal privilege to hide documents.
According to , Brinkema lamented that “a huge amount of evidence was likely suppressed” in the ad tech trial. new york times.
However, in a statement to the Times, Google maintained that it has produced millions of documents in two Justice Department antitrust cases and has comprehensively responded to investigations and litigation over the years.
