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”
The testimony matters because it addresses competitive alternatives at the time of the agreement, not merely the agreement’s written provisions. It also sits alongside publisher-side evidence that Google held publishers “hostage” in the ad market.
First-order effects
The former Facebook executive’s account becomes part of the evidentiary record in the Google ad trial, supporting the government’s portrayal of Google’s market power.
Google and Meta face added pressure to rebut the testimony’s characterization of the competitive conditions surrounding Jedi Blue; the testimony itself does not establish liability.
Second-order effects
The focus on whether a major platform had viable alternatives raises the stakes for how the court evaluates preferential ad-tech partnerships and auction-related commitments.
Publishers and ad-tech rivals gain a more detailed trial record to assess whether Google’s exchange relationships limited competitive options, while Google’s defense will need to emphasize available alternatives.
Third-order effects
If courts treat counterparties’ lack of practical alternatives as central to assessing ad-tech agreements, dominant platforms may face tighter constraints on deals that combine access, bidding terms, and commercial incentives.
The case is part of a broader shift from examining individual contract clauses toward examining whether market structure makes nominal alternatives meaningful; the outcome remains unresolved.
The trend: Digital-advertising antitrust scrutiny is increasingly testing whether platform partnerships reflect ordinary competition or the leverage of entrenched market power.
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]
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 …
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…
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…
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…
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…
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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...
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.”
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…