APAC experts react to first day of DOJ and Google trial

The antitrust trial between the US government and Google, began yesterday (September 9) with opening arguments from both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google, each presenting their perspectives on the search giant's alleged monopolistic practices.

Google is being accused of misusing its dominance in ad technology and breaching antitrust laws. The lawsuit, brought forth by the agency and several states, marks the second federal antitrust trial for the tech giant within a year. 

This follows a recent federal court decision in August, which found that Google had unlawfully sustained its monopoly over online search.

The DOJ kicked off the trial with a stark portrayal of Google’s market dominance, framing the case around what they describe as Google's ‘trifecta of monopolies’. 

Julia Wood, a senior DOJ attorney, asserted that Google holds monopolistic power in three key areas: the advertiser ad network, the publisher ad server, and the ad exchange. 

Wood outlined three core issues central to the DOJ’s case. She accused Google of leveraging acquisitions, such as Doubleclick and Admeld, to solidify its market position, alleging that they did not innovate, but acquired its way to success.

Wood then highlighted Google’s practice of tying its services, such as Google Ads with Google Ads Exchange (AdX) and AdX with Google Ads Manager/DoubleClick for Publishers. She argued that Google’s ‘all or nothing’ strategy was a deliberate effort to stifle competition.

Wood also criticised Google for using its ‘first look’ advantage in ad auctions and undermining practices like header bidding. She compared Google’s approach to a rigged auction, where the company could manipulate outcomes to its favour.

“Google controls every link in a chain of software that sells ad space online,” Wood claimed. The DOJ’s goal, she stated, is to ensure “freedom of choice for all market participants” arguing that Google’s monopolistic control stifles competition and harms both advertisers and publishers.

In its defence, Google sought to reframe the narrative by highlighting its substantial investments in ad technology and the competitive nature of the industry. 

Google’s lawyer, Karen Dunn, characterised the DOJ’s case as a misguided attempt to control an evolving market. Dunn also argued that Google’s practices are legitimate and that the DOJ’s approach might inadvertently benefit other major tech players like Amazon, Microsoft, and TikTok.

“The government’s case is like a time capsule with a Blackberry, an iPod and a Blockbuster video card. The serious risk of error or unintended consequences should be a critical consideration,” Dunn said.

The court also heard testimonies from key witnesses. Tim Wolfe, senior vice president of revenue operation at Gannett, the publisher of USA Today, spoke about the high costs associated with Google’s ad tools, revealing that over $10 million of the publisher’s $15 million ad spend goes to Google. 

Andrew Casale, president and chief executive of Index Exchange, described the difficulty of switching ad servers and Google's dominance in open-web display ads. Former UM Worldwide's global chief media officer Joshua Lowcock also testified how various ad types serve different purposes, underscoring the unique role of open-web display ads.

Response from the industry

Arielle Garcia, director of intelligence at Check My Ads, who was in the courtroom observing proceedings, noted in cross-examination that Google’s legal team engaged in a protracted debate with Casale over the nuances of header bidding and its implications for auction competition. 

Casale was pressed on his comments regarding header bidding’s impact. Google attempted to conflate auction competition with market competition and criticised Casale for not keeping up with the company's product name changes. 

The discussion also veered into technicalities around supply path optimisation (SPO), where Google argued that SPO inherently involves using fewer supply-side platforms (SSPs), a point contested by Casale.

She also described how Lowcock faced a barrage of questions from Google, who sought to challenge his statements about the nature of display ads and their role in the marketing funnel. 

Google’s questioning included attempts to highlight supposed contradictions in Lowcock’s past statements and to trivialise the nature of display ads by referencing Facebook’s ad formats.

“Google, unsurprisingly, played games around market definition, drawing faulty comparisons and positioning themselves as the guardians of the internet and the instigators of innovation. It was nearly as tedious as their cross-examination of the DOJ’s witnesses,” Garcia tells Campaign.

Ash Dharan, senior performance director at NP Digital tells Campaign the DOJ has correctly pointed out Google is controlling the advertising supply chain from the software publishers use, the data-fuelling ad purchases, to the auction transactions. 

On Google’s counterargument that platforms like Meta and TikTok offer alternatives, making it impossible for them to be classified as a monopoly, Dharan argues it is crucial to note that these platforms operate within closed ecosystems, unlike the open web, where Google dominates.

“Google will likely aim to downplay this critical distinction during the trial, as the justice department's analysis reveals that the company controls 90% of publisher ad-serving software, handles 98% of mobile internet queries, and commands nearly 98% of search ad demand—strong indicators of monopolized power,” says Dharan. “This trial should be fascinating to follow.”

Fomer Mindshare media communications director Nadiya Omar, now a consultant, notes Google is by no means 'demure or mindful', noting tech giant has undoubtedly leveraged its dominant position for profit, much like any other company would.

Omar says the case may tarnish Google's previously untarnished reputation, revealing a more aggressive approach to market dominance.

“Understandably, Google are crying that it’s not their fault because they’re not going to be held accountable to effectively creating the very ugliness of the digital landscape we are in today, which is squeezing publishers revenues to survival mode, thus impacting the quality of journalism, news, and content that society consumes," adds Omar.