The judge overseeing the Google ad trial calls Google's testimony that it faces “fierce competition” from the likes of Microsoft and Meta “highly questionable”
The ad-tech case has repeatedly centered on whether Google’s arrangements and market position left meaningful room for rivals. Earlier testimony said Meta entered the 2018 Jedi Blue agreement because it could not compete with Google’s “monopoly,” while Google had previously maintained that Meta could still use rival exchanges in its defense of the Jedi Blue pact.
The judge’s skepticism gives that earlier record added weight, including the former Facebook executive’s account of Meta’s bargaining position. It matters because the trial’s assessment of competitive alternatives is central to testing Google’s account of the ad-tech market.
First-order effects
Google’s argument that Microsoft and Meta constrain it faces a more skeptical judicial audience, weakening the credibility of that defense within the trial record.
The government’s effort to characterize Google’s ad-tech position as insulated from effective competition gains support from the judge’s stated view, though the remark is not itself a ruling.
Second-order effects
Meta and Microsoft may be treated less as evidence of present competitive discipline and more as firms whose ability to constrain Google must be demonstrated with concrete market evidence.
The parties’ remaining presentations are likely to focus more heavily on whether advertisers, publishers, and platforms had practical alternatives, rather than on the existence of nominal competitors.
Third-order effects
If courts continue to demand evidence of effective rather than merely named competitors in digital-platform cases, dominant firms’ broad competition defenses will carry less weight in antitrust litigation.
That shift could make the design and effects of partnerships such as Jedi Blue more important to market-power analysis, even where an agreement does not eliminate every formal alternative.
The trend: Digital antitrust cases are increasingly testing whether platform rivals provide real competitive constraints, not simply whether they exist in the same market.
some interesting lines of inquiry that could have been not great for the government were headed off by objections 2.) Google then started its case. I'm going to think more about this as I write my article, but simply put, this was very disappointing for Google
Google's lawyer kept trying to bring in recent deals: Twitter last quarter as example of closed app dialed into auctions (likely to then also bring in Facebook) but the Court made two comments that perked up the entire room. /2
We finally heard something about the neglected third proposed market- advertiser ad networks. Market power signs according to Lee are AdWords its margin and being able to profit above competitive levels. Barriers to entry include costs to build and scale/network effects.
The DOJ officially rested its case against Google this afternoon. Their final witness was Robin Lee who is a Harvard professor and was designated as an expert in industrial organization. His assignment in this case was to: • Determine if the DOJ's markets are appropriate
Lee conducted a series of quantitative analyses, reviewed public docs and discovery, and relied on his knowledge of economic antitrust principles. He concluded that: publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser ad networks for open web display advertising are well defined
She commented that much of the discussion was recent (including after discovery was closed) and more importantly was probably tainted since it was after all the lawsuits started coming in. DOJ also tried to flag another (she's seen enough) spoliation issue so damaged G cred. /3
3.) If today is a roadmap, there's no way Google will affirmatively challenge the balance of the government's case by Wednesday/Thursday when Dunn told the Court yesterday Google intended to wrap. It seems Google is content trying to win on the law, market definition, and
Also on the “spaghetti” of adtech exhibit (don't worry she gets it) she said it's probably more relevant for remedies than it is for liability. I read that literally but not that she had made up her mind already on liability. But 1st defense witness. Wow. /4
Lee compared pub ad servers having added functionality and serving other ad types to gas stations also selling potato chips and offering tire changes- they serve different purposes. G framed this as a misleading analogy because surely serving display ads and social media ads
faith in the Fourth Circuit/SCOTUS. This will all come down to whether Judge Brinkema follows Google into the weeds to embrace narrowly applying the law and a broad market definition. 4.) Like I said, more to come. But these are some of the most talented lawyers in the world and
USvGoogle Day 10. I dropped in again during afternoon to see how Google opened its defense. They went with an employee witness from sales who mapped out the adtech ecosystem and Google's offerings. I think intended to confuse but just made dominance clear. Most interesting was /1
AdX's market power signs according to Lee are G maintaining its 20% take rate fee and customers exhibiting little price response. Barriers to entry include overcoming scale effects due the access to AdW and actions from DFP that preference AdX.
The opening of Google's case revolved around having a Google exec “draw” a clearly pre-planned diagram of Google's view of the “ad tech ecosystem,” but the lines showing Google's view of the connections between parts of the industry were a mess on the screen. Very unprofessional
Summing up today at US v. Google (more to come in article): 1.) The day was dominated by Robin Lee's extremely long cross examination. It lasted about 4.5 hours and he (along with much of the Court) was exhausted by the end. I thought Bill Isaacson landed some punches, but...