Google And DOJ Deliver Closing Arguments In The Ad Tech Monopoly Case As The Legal Battle Reaches A Critical Juncture

Regulatory authorities have been working arduously to ensure companies are not in violation of the antitrust laws and that healthy competition is prevalent in the industry. With the ongoing scrutiny, it has been a tough year for Google as the company has been engaged in a legal battle with the DOJ. The pursuit has been over the company’s monopolistic practices when it comes to the digital advertising market by leveraging unlawfully its tools and platforms to discourage competition. Now, it looks like the legal matter is reaching a pivotal moment as both parties make their final arguments on the ongoing case.

Google and the U.S. Department Of Justice meet up for one last time to present their arguments for the ad tech dominance case

While Google is aggressively innovating and evolving its technology, especially when it comes to advancing the company’s AI capabilities, the legal pressure it has been facing amidst its pursuit of growth has been immense, especially in the past few months. The U.S. Department of Justice has been targeting the search engine giant for its monopolistic practices to stifle competition in the digital advertising market.

Now, the case is reaching its final stages, with both the concerned parties meeting up in an Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom to present their side of the story for one last time via The Verge. The session lasted for three hours, and attorneys of both sides gave in their closing arguments before the U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema. The judge is expected to turn in the ruling of the case by the end of the year, which could potentially change the online advertising industry and how it operates.

DOJ elaborated on its claims that Google has been unlawfully using its ad tech products, such as AdX exchange and DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) to maintain dominance in the digital advertising space. Google, in its defense, argues that its operations exist in a competitive environment where they have to face challenges from others in the industry. It is against striking deals with competitors as it would take away its ability to not just innovate effectively but hinder it from competing. The search engine giant’s claims are that the industry’s dominance is not as absolute as DOJ claims.

It is said that Judge Brinkema questioned both sides actively in an attempt to grasp more about the facts and technical details of the ad tech industry to be able to interpret the evidence better. The judge even challenged both the parties’ stances in order to be more clear on its final verdict. One of the key issues highlighted in the case is defining the market under which Google’s operations fall. DOJ strongly suggests that Google dominates not just one market, but the monopoly extends to three markets: publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser ad networks.

Google pushes for viewing the tech ad industry from a broader perspective and the segments as a single, two-sided market that connects publishers and advertisers of the ads. Google then argues that it is competing with not just social media platforms such as TikTok and Meta but also with other ad tech providers. The ruling of the case would be heavily based on the market definition of Google and could completely change the outcome depending on whether the court sides with the segmented approach or the unified one. DOJ has other legal pursuits against the company, and it turns out that this is not the only battle it has to fight.