A judge, not a jury, will give the verdict in the antitrust trial about Google's ad business, after Google paid $2.3M to cover US government's monetary damages
Google's payment followed a preemptive damages payment to the US government that was explicitly aimed at changing how the DOJ ad-tech case would be tried. The procedural outcome concentrates the initial decision with the court rather than a jury.
The case also sits alongside an advertiser antitrust suit that survived in part, keeping Google's ad-tech practices under challenge from both public enforcement and private market participants.
First-order effects
Google and the DOJ will present the ad-tech case to a judge, with the $2.3M payment covering the government's monetary-damages claim rather than resolving the underlying competition allegations.
The immediate verdict will turn on the judge's factual and legal findings, while advertisers' separate claims remain on their own track.
Second-order effects
A bench-trial ruling can give ad-tech buyers, publishers, and rival intermediaries a more detailed judicial record to assess their own disputes and contracting exposure.
Google's willingness to pay a limited damages amount to alter trial procedure may encourage close scrutiny of remedies and conduct claims, rather than treating the payment as a substantive settlement.
Third-order effects
If enforcement and private litigation continue to converge on the same ad-tech stack, the industry could face more pressure to separate or constrain practices that link buying, selling, and exchange services.
Later coverage of the case's remedies phase after an illegal-monopoly ruling illustrates why procedural choices early in competition cases can matter most when liability leads to operational remedies.
The trend: Digital-advertising antitrust scrutiny is increasingly focused on the market power created when one company operates multiple connected layers of the ad-trading system.
Google has once again exposed its true colors. They fear public accountability and are willing to work with corrupt attorneys and consultants to shield themselves. Last night's WSJ reporting on Josh Wright makes this crystal clear. 5/5
Google pretends to be the victim while dismissing the damages paid to the DOJ as insignificant. This shows how little they value public money, which will go directly to federal agencies harmed by their monopoly abuse. 2/5
The DOJ bravely requested a public jury trial in its case against Google's ad tech monopoly. Google initially consented but is now running scared after a guilty verdict in California. They fought to strike the jury demand and paid off the DOJ without notice. 1/5
Google escapes jury trial in US DOJ, states' adtech monopoly case with $2.3 million payment. Bench trial to begin September 9 in Virginia. https://content.mlex.com/... [image]
Will prep a more detailed explainer, but TL;DR: the back & forth between DOJ & Google on damages calculation methodologies showed a kind of uncertainty the judge considers would undermine the jury's right to have complete/accurate info to make determinations.
The DOJ isn't getting a jury trial in its adtech monopoly lawsuit v @Google in September. Virginia federal judge Leonie Brinkema just granted @Google's motion to strike a jury trial as she doesn't want a jury to speculate on what the damages should be without expert assistance.
Good. The U.S. legal system's use of juries to decide antitrust, patent infringement, etc makes no sense Yes, there is a right under the 7th Amendment. But I doubt the founders wanted 12 lay people to parse complex civil trials