Judge wants to fix Google’s ad tech monopoly before it’s too late
In a pivotal court hearing on Friday, Google and the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) presented their final arguments before Judge Leonie Brinkema, who will soon decide whether the tech giant should be compelled to divest parts of its ad tech business to address its monopoly. The case centers around Google’s dominance in online advertising, specifically its AdX exchange, which the DOJ argues should be sold off to foster competition in the market. The DOJ’s stance is that breaking up Google’s ad tech operations is essential for restoring fair competition, especially after Brinkema previously ruled that Google had established an illegal monopoly by tying together its advertising tools in a way that stifles rivals.
Judge Brinkema is expected to issue her ruling next year, yet she acknowledged the urgency of the situation, emphasizing that “time is of the essence.” During the proceedings, Google contended that the issues identified by the court could be remedied through behavioral changes rather than structural divestitures. This argument hinges on the belief that modifying certain business practices could sufficiently mitigate the monopoly’s impact without necessitating a breakup. However, Brinkema pointed out that while behavioral changes could be implemented quickly, the DOJ’s proposed remedies would likely be harder to enforce if Google opts to appeal the decision. This situation reflects a broader trend in antitrust cases, where timing and market dynamics play critical roles in judicial outcomes.
The case against Google is part of a larger narrative in the tech industry, particularly following a recent ruling against the DOJ in its case against Meta, where timing influenced the court’s decision. When the DOJ filed its case against Meta in 2020, TikTok was a relatively small competitor, but by the time the case reached trial, TikTok had grown significantly, complicating the government’s argument. This context highlights the strategic choice of venue for the Google case in the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the “Rocket Docket,” where cases are typically resolved more swiftly. As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of Judge Brinkema’s decision could resonate throughout the tech industry, potentially reshaping how ad tech operates and influencing future antitrust litigation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjIEKk6Gm2c
Google and the Justice Department had their last chance to make their case before Judge Leonie Brinkema Friday before she decides
whether Google needs to be broken up
to remedy its ad tech monopoly.
Brinkema expects to issue her ruling next year, but understands that “time is of the essence,” as
Reuters
reported
. While the DOJ wants the court to force Google to sell its AdX exchange, and leave open the option to force a sale of its publisher ad server, Google argued that only behavioral changes were necessary to remedy the issues the court found with its business. Brinkema previously ruled that Google held an illegal monopoly in two ad tech markets and illegally tied together two of its tools.
She was keenly aware that Google will likely appeal the case and noted the DOJ’s remedies “most likely would not be as easily enforceable while an appeal is pending,”
Reuters
reported. On the other hand, she said, behavioral changes could happen quickly,
The New York Times
reported
.
Timing was a crucial factor in another judge’s recent
decision to rule against the government’s case accusing Meta
of being an illegal monopolist. When the case was filed in 2020, TikTok was a far smaller rival than it was when the case went to trial earlier this year. Of course, that’s part of the reason the DOJ filed the Google ad tech case in the Eastern District of Virginia in the first place — otherwise known as the “
Rocket Docket
.”
