Starting Monday, the U.S. government will face another opportunity to persuade a federal judge to split up Google after a previous ruling allowed the tech giant to remain intact, despite a judge’s declaration of its monopolistic status. Over the next two weeks, attorneys representing both Google and the Justice Department will reconvene at a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, to engage in a trial focused on restoring competition in the advertising technology sector that Google has been found to monopolize illegally.
This comes shortly after D.C. District Court Judge Amit Mehta made a landmark ruling, labeling Google a monopolist in online search. However, Judge Mehta’s recommendations for reestablishing competition did not align with the government’s substantive requests, including a controversial attempt to sell Google’s Chrome browser and continued participation in prime distribution for browsers and mobile devices.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who also deemed Google a monopolist in two key advertising technology markets, will preside over this trial and is not bound by Judge Mehta’s ruling. Her awareness of recent developments could influence her perspective, yet there are reasons for the Justice Department to remain optimistic about a favorable outcome concerning the ad tech case.
The government’s request is distinct from the previous search case, focusing on a core part of Google’s operations. Specifically, the DOJ seeks to compel Google to divest its AdX exchange, a platform vital for digital transactions and display ads commonly seen on numerous websites. Judge Brinkema has already indicated that Google unlawfully tied AdX to its publisher ad server, Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP), which websites utilize to monetize their ad inventories. This could support the argument for separating the two entities.
In addition to divesting AdX, the government is urging the judge to mandate that Google open-source the auction logic used in DFP. Should that not sufficiently foster competition, they propose the option to compel Google to sell that product as well.
Conversely, Google contends that the issues identified by Judge Brinkema can be rectified through minor operational adjustments rather than a full breakup. The company portrays the DOJ’s proposals as unwarranted attempts to reverse acquisitions that were not inherently anticompetitive. Proposed fixes include giving third-party publisher ad servers access to real-time bids in AdX, a service currently limited to DFP. Google also suggests allowing publishers to export their data free of charge and repealing a pricing restriction known as unified pricing rules. Furthermore, the company proposes to eliminate certain auction tactics that the DOJ claims provide Google with an unfair advantage.
As with any antitrust case, the road ahead is complex and prolonged. Google will be required to await the remedies ruling before it can appeal the overarching monopoly finding, meaning that even if a breakup is ordered, implementation could take years. The extent of Judge Brinkema’s decisions will be indicative of the judicial system’s readiness to challenge the dominance of Big Tech companies.
