Google antitrust case—key takeaways from the complex ad tech trial

Google heralded a momentous ad tech rebrand in 2017, when it ditched the DoubleClick name and launched Google Ad Manager. The rebrand was promoted as a streamlining of internet ad sales, putting the ad exchange directly into the platform publishers use to control their ad inventory. Now, at the end of a speedy three-week antitrust trial, those two crucial Google ad tech entities face the prospect of being ripped apart. On Friday, Google’s attorneys were set to close their case in the antitrust suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. The government has tried to prove that Google monopolized publisher-side ad tech, and inappropriately leveraged its advertiser-facing technology to reinforce its market position. During the proceedings, Google tried to get a few key arguments across: The digital ad market is more competitive, with more rivals, than the government’s case presented. And that Google’s business decisions—how it managed its ad platform and internet ad auctions—were appropriate because companies don’t have to develop products that accommodate competitors. Google also tried to prove technical points that could be crucial to the case, namely that the online ad marketplace is two-sided, with buyers and sellers, meaning it would not be enough for the government to prove publishers were harmed by any Google tactics. The government would have to prove the other side of the market—advertisers—also suffered, which was a less prominent part of the government’s argument. “So far the DOJ has effectively demonstrated the extent of Google’s control over the sell-side of the ecosystem, but the prosecution must also address illegal tying when it comes to the buy-side components,” said Mathieu Roche, CEO of ID5, an ad tech firm. “If the prosecution can effectively do this, resulting in a breakdown of Google’s ad stack, we would see a fairer market which enables other companies to compete and foster innovation for the benefit of publishers and advertisers.” Check out the latest Ad Age events and award programs The trial started on Sept. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, with the government presenting a case that included days of testimony from publishers and ad tech experts. At stake is the future of open web programmatic advertising, the technology that brings display ads to publishers all over the internet. Judge Leonie Brinkema, who is deciding this bench trial without a jury, will determine whether Google acted as a monopolist with how it managed the largest publishing ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, and later Google Ad Manager. In the blog post seven years ago announcing the DoubleClick rebrand, an animation portrayed the two products by merging their logos—DoubleClick for Publishers with AdX. Poof, Google Ad Manager emerged. Ultimately Google could be forced to tear up DoubleClick for Publishers, disentangling AdX from the product, and then GAM could stand alone as basically a utility for online publishers, according to ad tech experts. If Google loses the case, it could still take years to litigate on appeal. However it shakes out, the case has already left its mark on the world of ad tech, with Google rivals and partners watching every document dump and reading every email to peek into Google’s typically impenetrable inner sanctum. There has been unparalleled exposure for Google and its business dealings, shining a light on a convoluted ad tech ecosystem. Google critics have claimed the company was complex by design, making its multi-layered ad products hard to grasp, and harder to regulate. Google’s keys to the case Google has attacked pillars of the government’s case, especially regarding the online ad markets. Google has claimed the government narrowly defined, gerrymandered even, the market so that it only included open web display advertising, which are the programmatic ads that pop up on websites. About 90% of online publishers use Google Ad Manager as their main ad server, according to the government. That’s where the government wants to keep the discussion, but Google has argued that internet advertising includes Meta, Amazon, TikTok, Microsoft and others. This week, Google even submitted a video deposition of a Meta executive who testified that Meta is indeed a direct competitor. Google attorneys also argued that the ad tech markets are two-sided, which is a critical component to parts of antitrust law. If it is a two-sided market, with buyers and sellers, the government must account for how Google’s practices affected both sides. The government has focused on the sell side, publishers, while Google says there is robust competition on the buy side in ad tech. Google has rivals such as The Trade Desk, a demand-side platform, and Amazon, which has a DSP. Complexities of the case One exhibit that got people’s attention this week was a diagram submitted by Google showing its conception of the programmatic ad markets. It was a jumbled mix of Google ad tech products for buyers and sellers, with a couple of slots to show where “competitors” fit in. The byzantine ad tech maze drew the attention of Google’s critics, including Arielle Garcia, director of intelligence at Check My Ads, the advertising watchdog group. Garcia has chronicled the trial, and Check My Ads made an online repository for the copious documents and exhibits from the case. Google has deployed a “weaponized complexity strategy,” Garcia told Ad Age by direct message this week. Google’s strategy appears to be to “confuse and then reset [the judge’s] understanding with their version,” Garcia said. Andrew Frank, VP, distinguished analyst at research firm Gartner, also took note of the jumbled ad tech graphic presented by Google. The chart was supposed to show where competition exists in the market, but it was mostly filled with Google’s logo. “The thing that most stuck in my memory is the diagram that Google produced describing the ad tech ecosystem, which I thought was telling in a lot of ways,” Frank said. “Clearly they want to establish, and they had plenty of testimony suggesting, that this is a competitive market, and that they need to define it more broadly.”Recent: What could happen if Google loses the antitrust case “But that particular diagram,” Frank said, “I thought, showed a surprising network of connections that seemed not to necessarily reflect a diversity of providers.” Security measures Another cornerstone of Google’s case is its claim that many of its business decisions, which are being second-guessed during the trial, were made because of security concerns with internet advertising. Google has been criticized for being slow to make its tools interoperable with other players in online ad markets, particularly with rivals that also serve publishers. If Google’s moves are determined to have been made for legitimate business reasons, such as managing its network security, it could prevail. Google presented an exhibit this week claiming that rival exchanges had massive amounts of spam advertising. It’s an argument that could cut both ways as Google has also been criticized over the years for lapses in preventing digital ad abuse. “Google sort of tried to take in their defense this holier than now stance, which is, ‘if not for Google, the internet would be in tatters,’ and that ‘nobody can protect the consumer but Google,’” said an ad tech exec from a Google rival, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “And I think that's just false. This is a very competitive market, and there are platforms that do a lousy job at things like spam, malware [and] fraud, but there are also platforms that do an incredible job.” “If you do a terrible job at spam, eventually you get fired,” the ad tech executive said. Publishers spurned The Google case could revolve around the question of whether the judge sees this as a two-sided marketplace, buyers and sellers. The government early in the trial focused on publishers, calling witnesses from Gannett, News Corp., and other media outlets that use Google’s ad tech products. This week, a key question was posed to one of Google’s expert witnesses, Mark Israel, president of consulting firm Compass Lexecon: Do publishers have options other than Google Ad Manager to run their digital ad businesses? Google has raised Meta, TikTok and Amazon as rivals in this space, but they do not offer products that publishers can use for serving ads, competitive with Google Ad Manager. Ari Paparo, an ad tech influencer and entrepreneur, was stumped by Israel’s testimony this week. “The thing that made Israel’s testimony absurd was that while he made some very solid arguments as to why Google Ads (on the buy-side) might not be a monopoly,” Paparo wrote in The Monopoly Report newsletter. “He then irrationally extended those arguments to [DoubleClick for Publishers] and AdX (on the sell-side).” The judge has indicated that there could be a ruling in the trial before the end of the year. If Google loses, there would likely be an appeal before any remedies would be presented. Google could be forced to spin out Google Ad Manager, setting up a standalone business for publishers to use for their ad tech needs. The impact of the case might not be felt immediately, especially if appeals drag on. Some industry watchers have said Google’s reputation has already suffered from all the attention to its business practices. “Whatever happens, the degree of exposure that this process has produced will certainly inspire a lot of organizations to at least think about how to test their way to a more diversified media approach,” said Gartner’s Frank. “In that way, it’s going to affect the market regardless of any specific remedies.” NextGen Marketing Summit Join us for a crash course on Gen Z, DTC marketing and the creator economy Register today

Google antitrust case—key takeaways from the complex ad tech trial

Featured Stories