Google’s adtech monopoly faces historic antitrust test

The DOJ and Google delivered closing arguments debating whether the tech giant’s ad-tech dominance stifles competition or drives innovation.

The U.S. Justice Department and eight states wrapped up closing arguments on Monday in a landmark antitrust case accusing Google of monopolizing the ad technology market. The outcome could reshape the tech giant’s business model and set a precedent for regulating Big Tech.

Driving the news. Lawyers for the DOJ argued that Google has abused its dominance in online ad tools, linking its products to lock out competitors and stifle innovation. Aaron Teitelbaum, a government attorney, likened Google’s market grip to being “once, twice, three times a monopolist.”

• Google’s lead lawyer, Karen Dunn, pushed back, framing the company as an innovator in a competitive market. She argued that the government failed to prove its case, saying the evidence showed Google’s actions benefited advertisers and publishers.

Why we care. If Judge Leonie Brinkema sides with the government, the ruling could break up Google’s $31 billion ad-tech business and set a legal benchmark for antitrust cases against other tech giants like Amazon, Meta, and Apple. It will certainly be a major disruption for all advertisers as you won’t have access to the amount of data that Google provides for reporting and optimization.

Zoom in. The case centers on Google’s control over tools used to buy and sell ads online. The DOJ claims the company has an 87% share in the ad-selling tech market, enabling it to skim excessive profits at the expense of publishers and advertisers.

• Google’s 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick is a key focus, with the government alleging the deal entrenched its dominance.
• Witnesses included YouTube chief Neal Mohan and executives from publishers like News Corp, who testified about Google’s practices harming competition.

Between the lines: Judge Brinkema raised sharp questions during closing arguments, including about Google’s policies that led to the deletion of internal communications. However, she hasn’t signaled how she might rule.

• In one exchange, she questioned whether market dominance could simply reflect the best product winning. The DOJ countered that Google’s behavior went beyond fair competition.

The stakes: A ruling against Google could force it to spin off its ad-tech business and impose stricter regulations.

• The DOJ has already called for breaking up Google’s ad operations. Similar demands have been made in its separate case on Google’s search dominance, where penalties could include selling Chrome.

What’s next: Judge Brinkema’s decision is expected in the coming months. Meanwhile, Big Tech’s regulatory battles are escalating:

• The DOJ has sued Apple over antitrust issues.
• The FTC has ongoing cases against Amazon and Meta for allegedly crushing competition.

What they’re saying:

• Mr. Teitelbaum (DOJ): Google tied its tools to enrich itself, “killing off” potential challengers to its dominance.
• Ms. Dunn (Google): The government’s case “simply does not hold up,” highlighting price drops and quality improvements in ad tech under Google.

Bottom line. The ruling could deal a major blow to Google, but it also has the potential to redefine how courts approach tech monopolies in the digital age.

However, this blow to Google could also lead to a blow to users if not done correctly. Industry experts already raised major concerns off the back of a possible Chrome sale:

• Another company will just fill the monopoly hole Google vacates.
• A more challenging landscape for advertisers.
• Another case where government decisions lead to less innovation and more complexity.