Google ad trial: an ex-Facebook ad exec testifies the company signed the 2018 Jedi Blue deal with Google because it couldn't compete against Google's “monopoly”
- Employees concluded ad tech ‘monopoly’ hurt competition — The social network eventually signed an agreement with Google
BloombergLeah Nylen
Context & Ripple Effects
Jedi Blue had already drawn scrutiny over reported auction-win incentives for Facebook, while Google’s earlier position was that Meta remained free to use rival exchanges. This testimony sharpens the factual dispute from contract terms to whether a major platform viewed Google as an unavoidable counterparty.
The trial record also sits alongside judicial skepticism of Google’s claimed competitive pressure from large rivals, reflected in the judge’s questioning of Google’s “fierce competition” account. The significance is not that the agreement alone decides the case, but that it supplies evidence about the market choices available to a sophisticated partner.
First-order effects
The testimony gives challengers a former Facebook executive’s account that the company entered Jedi Blue because it could not effectively compete with Google, strengthening the narrative that the deal reflected market power rather than ordinary partnership choice.
Google must rebut both the witness’s characterization and the implication that its ad-tech position constrained Meta’s alternatives; its prior defense has emphasized Meta’s ability to use rival exchanges.
Second-order effects
Ad-tech buyers, publishers, and exchange rivals gain a clearer lens for assessing whether partnership incentives can reinforce a dominant intermediary’s position rather than broaden competition.
The case increases pressure on large platform-to-platform advertising agreements to demonstrate that preferential terms do not foreclose meaningful use of competing exchanges or auction paths.
Third-order effects
If courts treat powerful partners’ internal assessments as probative of limited alternatives, antitrust analysis of ad tech may focus more on practical bargaining leverage than on the nominal existence of rivals.
The broader effect could be closer scrutiny of vertically connected ad-tech arrangements, especially where contractual incentives shape auction participation; the outcome still depends on the full record and legal findings.
The trend: Ad-tech antitrust scrutiny is increasingly testing whether the structure and incentives of platform partnerships preserve competition in markets with nominally available alternatives.
On cross, Google was trying to position prebid/HB as an alt that could bypass reliance on AdX and DFP. Tom compared publishers “having the option” to forego AdX demand to him “having the option to starve to death.”
@jason_kint
Jason Kint on x
We also get to see how the ‘existential threat’ of Facebook (FAN) using header bidding played out. Here is Facebook's description of the terms of Jedi Blue (giving FB ability to buy its users without Google having last look). Discovery on this deal is also hot in Texas now. /6 [i…
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
We heard a lot about FB's views of G as a competitor, an email stating some were “...worried about the strategic issue that arises once G sits b/t pubs and FB. We have seen them take very aggressive steps once they have a footprint. I would hate for DCLK to use AN to gain a str…
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
FB's “point of view on the ad tech market” was that “G's market share will continue to grow regardless of partnership because they are the only competition still investing heavily in both tech & services, and they have the most compelling feature rich products.”
@jason_kint
Jason Kint on x
Although the Jedi Blue deal was justification for discovery/depositions of Facebook, there appear to be some nice bonuses. Like this strategy deck supporting DOJ's relevant market definition. Facebook wants to get into open web display (programmatic). Social is a diff market. /7 …
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
Boland also stated that header bidding sent G into “defense mode” and that it benefited everyone but G because it took away its unfair advantage that gave AdX full visibility of publisher inventory.
@leah_nylen
@leah_nylen on x
Day 5. Marketing funnel references: 17 https://www.bloomberg.com/...
@jason_kint
Jason Kint on x
Day 5 US v Google 2 Woah. This may be the most egregious evidence of a Google senior executive (LaSala) in litigation hold intentionally deleting evidence using history off chat. This was during an apparent crisis involving G CBO (Philipp Schindler) and Apple IDFA limits. /1 [ima…
@bigtechontrial
@bigtechontrial on x
For followers of the Google Search case, this strategy might sound familiar to Google's revenue share agreement with Apple, in exchange for Apple curbing the development of its own competing search engine. That case didn't end well for Google...
@jason_kint
Jason Kint on x
This table in Facebook deck clearly defines the markets. Google was found last month to be an abusive monopolist in search text ads. Now this trial is about programmatic (aka open web display). But Standard IO (direct deals) aren't in the market. Nor is Social. /8 [image]
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
FB in attempting to develop a full ad stack, acquired a publisher ad server (LiveRail) which failed. But on cross, we learned it wasn't G or DFP to blame and that FB shut things down because of major integration issues and a culture clash following the acquisition among other re…
@jason_kint
Jason Kint on x
While “Jedi Blue” deal between Google and Facebook surfaced for the first time today in a Virginia courtroom at the US v Google antitrust trial, an Eastern District of Texas court just denied Facebook's protective order in the same matter. Pop some corn please. It's Friday. [imag…
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
Boland was crossed on this email and his prior praise of G for dynamic allocation, where he agreed that it raises CPM for pubs and makes it easier for targeted ads to be delivered- reinforcing G's point that its conduct has benefited its customers, even if rivals didn't like it.
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
On cross we saw a doc where FB found that G achieved its position in the market, that it characterizes as a monopoly, by “offering the best in class product & continually investing in improvements, investing heavily in servicing customers, and aggressively pricing tools.”
@vidushi_law
Vidushi Dyall on x
The DOJ's last live witness of the day was Brian Boland who had stints at MSFT and notably Meta. One of Boland's roles at Meta was VP of Ads & Product Marketing.