As the AdTech case comes to a close, Google and the DOJ square off

Google contends DOJ's antitrust case lacks clear market definitions and targets lawful practices.

Final arguments were presented on November 25 in a pivotal antitrust trial where the Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses Google of violating federal laws through its digital advertising operations.

The case, initiated last year, stems from DOJ's allegations that Google employed anticompetitive tactics with its advertising platforms, such as Google Ads. The Virginia bench trial, which began in September, follows a significant legal decision against Google in Washington. Both cases hold the potential to reshape Google's operations and influence future antitrust rulings.

DOJ attorney Aaron Teitelbaum argued before Judge Leonie Brinkema that Google manipulated ad auction rules and engaged in anticompetitive practices across three core advertising technologies. He claimed the company leveraged its tools to dominate the market and coerced businesses into partnerships to access broader demand pools.

Karen Dunn, representing Google, countered that the DOJ relied on selectively chosen employee communications and failed to prove anticompetitive behavior. Dunn emphasized Google's contributions to innovation, highlighting decreased prices alongside increased ad spending and higher-quality transactions.

A key dispute involved whether platforms like Facebook constitute competition, challenging the idea that Google wields monopoly power in advertising technology. Both sides also debated the proper market definitions needed to evaluate Google's conduct.

Dunn argued that the DOJ's proposed market definitions were flawed and that Google’s actions were lawful under existing antitrust precedents. She accused the DOJ of excluding viable alternatives to Google’s technologies to strengthen their claims. Conversely, Teitelbaum criticized Google’s market perspective as vague and overly theoretical.

Judge Brinkema questioned Google’s attempt to align its case with the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Ohio v. American Express, which addressed credit card transactions. Dunn maintained that both cases involve tools facilitating transactions between buyers and sellers, but Brinkema noted differences in the nature of the transactions.

The DOJ proposed three distinct advertising markets—publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser ad networks—and called for remedies if Google is found guilty of antitrust violations. These could include requiring Google to divest its ad manager suite and implementing measures to restore competition.

The case coincides with DOJ’s efforts in a separate search-related lawsuit, where they argued for Google’s divestment of Chrome. As the trial concludes, the outcome may have far-reaching implications for Google’s business practices and antitrust enforcement in the digital era.