In the first day of the US DOJ's antitrust trial focused on ads, prosecutors allege Google abused its size to dominate the sector through acquisitions and more
The ad-tech case expands the DOJ's scrutiny of Google beyond the earlier search-monopoly proceeding, whose opening arguments centered on agreements with smartphone makers that allegedly protected Google's search position. It puts the company’s role across the advertising supply chain at the center of a separate legal test.
The trial began after previews of the states’ and DOJ’s claims against Google’s ad business outlined the case before proceedings opened. Subsequent coverage indicates the dispute could ultimately turn on remedies as well as liability.
First-order effects
Google must defend its acquisitions and ad-market conduct in court, while DOJ prosecutors begin building a record that they say shows unlawful dominance.
Publishers and other ad-market participants become central witnesses and evidence sources; a former News Corp executive later described publishers as being held “hostage” by Google.
Second-order effects
The case raises the stakes for firms that depend on Google’s advertising tools: an adverse finding could prompt closer scrutiny of how buying, selling, and exchange services are connected.
Competitors and publishers gain a clearer forum to challenge the economics of a consolidated ad-tech stack, though no operational change follows from allegations alone.
Third-order effects
If the DOJ establishes liability, the case could move US competition policy from policing individual platform contracts toward restructuring vertically integrated digital intermediaries; later DOJ and state requests for a sale of Google’s network ad business show that remedies may be consequential.
The outcome will help determine whether antitrust enforcement can address alleged harms in multi-sided advertising markets, where customers on different sides of the transaction rely on the same infrastructure.
The trend: This is part of a broader shift toward testing whether dominant digital platforms can retain control over multiple layers of the same market without antitrust intervention.
Oh boy, it's finally a wrap of Day 1 DOJ v. Google II. They call it the rocket docket for a reason, and Judge Brinkema is wasting no time pushing this trial full steam. We heard from 4 witnesses already! It's day one but we are ahead of schedule. Breakdowns coming shortly.
From 2008-2022, there has been 18x growth in digital ads In 2010, G got about 15% of that rev In 2022, it got 10% This is a sign of a health marketplace that is not in need of govt interference. It's also a market that is rapidly evolving.
Google's attempt basically to say market is invented as they argued “open” (doesn't include Facebook, Facebook's Instagram, TikTok which are clearly closed), display doesn't include native (duh), web (doesn't include CTV - duh). More in a bit on where this is actually headed. /11
Haha “word and tech salad.” A bit like “Just keep writing good content, and we'll catch up.” “The helpful systems are now baked into the core and applied broadly” “You can recover in a couple of weeks, no, I meant several... sorry, did we say anyone was going to recover?”
Cited G emails “we'll do to display what we did to search” striking after losing search trial last month"-Bender and “use AdX or you don't get access to our demand.”-Spencer /3
Google, as expected, tried to poke holes in “open web display advertising” as a market to no real success. Witnesses on day one were each part of market (agency, exchange, publisher, publisher ad server). DOJ had tried to skip this sleepy 🥱 attempt during pretrial. But... /10
So many fascinating details won't make it out of the courtroom in real time because the Court has banned all electronic devices, even cellphones and smart watches, from the courtroom. Not even DOJ or Google's counsel can use laptops. Extremely frustrating.
US subtly established stock market metaphor early (ad market is 342x larger than stock market transactions per day) with bonus reminder of evidence purge ("a written email Google actually preserved"). /2
Google's opening statements countered the DOJ, saying this case was actually about a transformative innovation that G has invested heavily in to the benefit of itself, small publishers, and users who want free content and a free internet.
Ok, first update on USvGoogle quickly during lunch break with my key points for those not in room or catching general updates. Mostly opening statement and foundation. Strong for US. Goog generally adding word and tech salad as expected in order to try to confuse. Here we go. /1
US v Google Ad Tech is off to a heated start. Julia Tarver Wood for DOJ argues that Google controlled (1) the competition, by acquiring its competitors, (2) the customers, by locking publishers and marketers into its network, and (3) the rules, by rigging the game.