Google claims ad market remains competitive as it rests in antitrust trial

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) — The federal antitrust trial against Google for what the U.S. Department of Justice says is an unfair domination of the web advertisement market drew closer to an end on Friday as Google wrapped up its case, hammering home its contention that other ad exchanges are competition for the tech giant.

Google has spent the past three weeks in federal court in Virginia defending against antitrust charges involving the operation of its advertising arm.

The Justice Department characterizes Google as a monopoly, but Google contends that the government misstates how the ad market works. The tech giant argues instead that it helps publishers monetize their businesses.

Google attorneys, led by Karen Dunn of the firm Paul Weiss, claimed during the trial that the Justice Department selectively enforced antitrust laws against the tech giant and failed to show plausible harm to the competition or consumers.

Google also argues that the Justice Department’s case is based on a faulty premise about the marketplace. Google said in court filings, “The appropriate market in this case is a single two-sided market that includes all ad tech tools that facilitate the matching of ad space buyers and sellers.”

A market is two-sided when buyers and sellers use a platform, broker, or other intermediary to exchange offers to buy or sell goods and services, according to The International Center on Law and Economics. The organization says on its website, “Due to the complex dynamics unique to two-sided markets, conduct that may appear anticompetitive when the effects on only one set of customers is considered may prove to be entirely consistent with — and actually promote — healthy competition when the effects on both sides are examined.”

In previous testimony, witnesses for Google have said that Google isn’t actually in a position to dictate the market and that there are advertisement alternatives in the form of other major media companies, including competitors like Meta.

After resting on Friday, the Justice Department’s lead attorney, Julia Tarver Wood, called a rebuttal witness, Matthew Wheatland, chief digital officer at DailyMail.com.

Wheatland, who had also testified earlier in the case, countered Google’s assertions that dissatisfied publishers could simply redirect advertising funds to social media or apps.

“It’s not possible to shift all of our readership to an app,” he said.

He was also asked about direct ad sales and noted that this would be difficult for DailyMail. Google’s ad server has a 90% market share. He said the prospect of switching entirely to direct ad sales would mean the DailyMail wouldn’t be able to access AdX, the Google ad exchange that allows publishers to sell ad inventory.

Google attorneys objected to having Wheatland, who had already testified, return to the stand.

While U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema allowed it, she grumbled that the government was presenting “cumulative” information. She made a similar complaint when Google attorneys presented witnesses who, over and again, said that they used ad exchanges that competed with Google.

The government claimed in its 2023 complaint against the tech giant that “Google has monopolized the ad exchange market through an exclusionary course of conduct.”

Closing arguments are set for Nov. 25, after which Brinkema will decide whether Google should be considered a successful tech business in Silicon Valley’s ecosystem or a monopolist wielding power.

Should Brinkema decide Google acted unlawfully to monopolize the U.S. ad market in violation of antitrust laws, she could order divesture of Google advertising features.

This case is not the first time the Justice Department has pitted itself against Google for anticompetitive practices. The trial follows Google’s defeat in a separate antitrust action where a federal judge in Washington determined that Google had illegally monopolized online searches. A second trial will determine what punishment Google will face.