Google “manipulated the rules” of online display advertising for years and must “be held accountable,” attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice told a court.
The tech giant was accused of operating a “predatory” monopoly and being an “authoritarian middleman” because it controls how publishers and advertisers interact.
DOJ attorneys laid out their case Monday in closing arguments after a three-week antitrust trial that took place in September.
The case centers on the billions of ads bought and sold every day on web pages, including those from news publishers.
The sales are “programmatic,” meaning automated auctions that last milliseconds.
Google owns the largest ad server, the technology tool publishers use to sell space on their sites, known as DFP.
It also runs the main tool advertisers use to buy the space, called Google Ads.
And it has the largest exchange where the instant auctions take place, which is called AdX.
The costs for the three technology tools ensure that Google keeps more than 30 cents of every advertising dollar that passes through them.
The case will be heard by Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, just outside Washington DC
Aaron Teitelbaum, representing the DOJ, told the court: “For more than a decade, Google has manipulated the rules of the road, limited customer choice, and eradicated better ad technology products through acquisitions. Google has a monopoly once, twice, three times.”
Google’s alleged monopoly on online display advertising is negatively impacting news organizations’ ability to invest in journalism, a senior publishing executive told the trial
He added: “As a result, Google’s customers have no realistic alternatives to doing business with Google.
“Google did not achieve this trifecta of monopolies by accident.”
Mr. Teitelbaum said Google has “saddled customers with product features they don’t want” and that publishers were “stuck using DFP – they have nowhere else to go.”
He said: ‘Google says to its customers: ‘Google knows best’. But that is not correct. Competition knows best, freedom of choice knows best.
“We are here to hold Google accountable for its predatory, anti-competitive behavior over the past decade. The result is less innovation, less consumer choice and higher prices in these markets.”
He urged the judge to “hold Google liable for the damage it has caused.”
Google CEO Sundar Pichai was not present at the court
Julia Wood, also representing the DOJ, added that the trial reminded her of Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities.”
“Is this the best time or the best time?” she said. “You heard one story from publishers, who weren’t paid to be here.”
Another story was told by witnesses who “received money from Google,” she said.
Google acted as an “authoritarian middleman” in online advertising and “the facts in this case are overwhelming,” she added.
Google’s Karen Dunn told the court: “The law simply does not support what the plaintiffs argue in this case.”
She said the tech giant had “the cake for everyone” and that “Google’s behavior is a story of innovation in response to competitive forces.”
Ms. Dunn argued that the DOJ “gerrymanced” a limited market of “open web display advertising” for the court to consider.
Members of Google’s legal team wait outside the courthouse
Google was part of a broader advertising market where it faced competition from Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and others, she said.
When that broader market was considered, Google’s share of digital advertising fell, she added.
She said advertisers were also moving from display advertising on websites to social media, and the growth of advertising on TikTok had been “astronomical.”
She added: “There are millions of publishers integrated into the Google ecosystem. The court never heard from the publishers who are happy with what they get.
“The antitrust laws don’t say you have to share your technology on terms that other people want.”
During closing arguments, Judge Brinkema noted as “very important” evidence that Google had a policy of automatically deleting employee chat data after 24 hours.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
She will now decide whether Google has a monopoly on display advertising.
If so, she would consider prosecutors’ request to at least let Google sell its publisher’s ad server and ad exchange.
The judge has said she will give her verdict soon, as early as next month.
Whatever the outcome, there will almost certainly be an appeal, prolonging a process that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.