The DOJ and Google presented their closing arguments in the antitrust trial focusing on the internet giant’s stranglehold over the online ads business, with both sides reiterating their main points from the three-week trial held in Alexandria, Virginia.
Marketing Brew reports that in the closing arguments of Google’s second antitrust trial this year, the DOJ and Google reiterated many of the same arguments presented during the initial three-week trial before a month-long recess. The trial, held in Alexandria, Virginia, aimed to determine whether Google had unlawfully monopolized the programmatic advertising market.
The DOJ argued that Google owns the entire ad-tech supply chain, including the largest ad server, the largest exchange, and a vast supply of advertisers. They claimed that by tying these components together, Google choked out competition, with DOJ attorney Aaron Teitelbaum stating that Google is “once, twice, three times a monopolist.” The government referenced emails introduced during the trial, in which Google executives compared the company’s market position to a scenario where “Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE” and stated that Google would “do to display what we did to search.”
In response, Google’s lawyers argued that the company’s dominance is a testament to its superior technology and that it excels in a highly competitive market, facing off against other tech giants like Meta, Microsoft, and TikTok. Google’s lead attorney, Karen Dunn, cited two Supreme Court decisions—Ohio v. American Express Co. and Verizon v. Trinko—to argue that Google’s operations are legal. She claimed that Google can bind publishers to its ad tech if they want access to its advertisers, as companies aren’t bound to work with competitors in a two-sided market.
US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema questioned the DOJ’s decision not to call any advertisers to testify, instead relying on testimony from media buyers and agencies. She also noted that the DOJ’s case relies heavily on Google’s sell-side business and less on the buy-side. Judge Brinkema also criticized Google, cutting off Dunn when she began to assert that Google was a collaborative workplace, calling the inclusion of internal messages “dangerous territory” due to accusations of Google encouraging employees to delete potentially incriminating messages.
The trial’s outcome could significantly disrupt the digital advertising industry, as Google is the world’s largest advertiser. Google’s advertising network business brought in $7.4 billion last quarter, not including Search or YouTube revenue. Earlier this year, a federal judge found that Google had monopolized online search, striking a blow to the company’s most profitable line item and the data that informs its advertising business.
Judge Brinkema’s verdict is expected by the end of this year or in early 2025.
Read more at Marketing Brew here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.
