Google adtech antitrust trial: Everything you need to know

The antitrust trial over allegedly monopolistic practices in the $200 billion digital advertising industry could lead to significant changes.

Google is on trial for allegedly abusing its dominance of the $200 billion digital advertising industry.

The U.S. Department of Justice claimed that through acquisitions and anticompetitive conduct, Google seized sustained control of the full advertising technology (“adtech”) stack: the tools advertisers and publishers use to buy and sell ads, and the exchange that connects them.

In response, Google denied the claims stating several ad companies compete in the space, a mixture of tools are used so they don’t get the full fees, their fees are lower than industry average and small businesses will suffer the most if they lose this case.

The outcome of the landmark case could bring significant changes to Google and publishers. However, experts argue that could seriously hurt advertisers as well.

It’s equally possible the trial will result in no changes and Google will be free to continue operating as it wants.

Day 1: Accusations and badgering of witnesses (Sept. 9)

DOJ laid out their accusations as follows:

Google controls the advertiser ad network.

Google dominates the publisher ad server.

Google runs the ad exchange connecting the two.

Google’s defense:

Disputed the definition of open-web display ads.

Argued the DOJ’s market definition is “gerrymandered” – the DOJ are manipulating the boundaries of their definition to make Google out to be the bad guy.

Presented a chart showing competitors like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and TikTok.

Bottom line. This trial could determine whether Google’s control over digital advertising constitutes an illegal monopoly, potentially affecting how information is disseminated online.

Day 2: Google keeping publishers hostage & could be more transparent (Sept. 10)

Stephanie Layser, former ad exec at News Corp, testifies:

Google’s ad tools leave publishers feeling “stuck,” – She explained that NewsCorp wanted to switch ad servers back in 2017, but the revenue risk was too high because of Google ads demand.

40-60% of NewsCorp revenue was from AdX, and of that, 40-60% was Google Ads demand.

Google ad server tech is outdated but unavoidable due to the lack of viable alternatives and the platform’s overwhelming market presence – “DFP (Google Ads Manager) isn’t a superior product – it’s a ’20-30 year old’ piece of “slow and clunky” tech

Jay Friedman, CEO of Goodway Group, criticized Google’s variable pricing, describing it as “gaming the system.” His testimony highlighted Google’s inherent conflict of interest in controlling both the buy- and sell-side of the ad market.

Eisar Lipkovitz, former Google VP of Engineering, provided a candid view of Google’s internal dysfunction, noting that Google’s ad auction practices were unfair and lacked transparency.

It was “stupid” and “idiotic.” “They don’t want to do anything,” he says, “just want to talk about stuff” and “lie” or “omit information.”

He also likened Google’s dominance to a financial firm controlling the stock exchange, acknowledging the need for industry regulation.

Day 3: Google has too much data, stifles competition (Sept. 11)

Jed Dederick, CRO at the Trade Desk (representing DV360’s main competitor), emphasized that buy-side and sell-side interests should remain separate, highlighting the conflict in Google controlling both.

Google’s access to vast user data (via YouTube, Search) gave them a significant competitive advantage, making it difficult for other platforms to thrive.

Other key themes argued:

Google’s control over ad servers stifles competition and innovation (Brad Bender, Ex-Google Product Lead).

Practices like First Look and Dynamic Revenue Share favor Google at the expense of publishers (Ravi Ramamoorthi, UC San Diego Professor).