The publisher-focused DOJ v. Google advert tech antitrust trial is completed. A choose will now resolve the destiny of Google’s sell-side advert tech enterprise.
On Friday, either side introduced their closing arguments and fielded closing questions from Decide Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court docket for the Jap District of Virginia.
Even she will be able to’t consider this odyssey is almost over.
“I’m undecided it’s the final set of arguments,” Decide Brinkema joked to start out the day.
Closing time
Neither set of closing arguments contained any main surprises.
The DOJ and Google outlined positions they’d already firmly established through the treatment trial part in September. The DOJ maintains {that a} structural treatment is required, reasonably than simply behavioral necessities that will impose coverage adjustments however go away Google potential leeway to undermine the ruling’s affect.
From Google’s perspective, the DOJ’s argument “is all about belief,” stated Karen Dunn, Google’s lawyer. The DOJ’s proposal, she argued, is full of references to Google’s “impulses” and to how “inventive minds” at Google may discover new methods to take care of monopoly management. In essence, she stated, the DOJ’s message is just that Google can’t be trusted.
However has the DOJ confirmed {that a} full divestiture of AdX, Google’s advert change, is important to return truthful competitors to the sell-side of the advert tech market?
In keeping with Google, no, clearly.
Dunn contended that the DOJ’s formidable structural proposal falls quick. Throughout her hour and a half of arguments and rebuttals, she pointed repeatedly – roughly 20 occasions or extra – to the Google Search antitrust trial, which publishers and advert tech execs criticized for its gentle behavioral treatment strategy.
Subscribe
AdExchanger Day by day
Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox each weekday.
Belief (or the shortage thereof)
To be truthful, the DOJ does relaxation its case for divestiture no less than partly on Google’s untrustworthiness.
The DOJ’s attorneys argue that Google is a “recidivist” offender that can doubtless preserve following its monetary incentives, even when which means breaking the legislation or defying the spirit of a court docket order.
For instance, even when Google pinky swears to not favor its personal pipeline between AdX and AdWords, it might nonetheless exclude Prebid demand by pointing to alleged stock high quality points and model security requirements.
This raises key questions on whether or not Google may be trusted to behave pretty when incentives are misaligned. Like, as an illustration, would Google ship slower bids or responses to Prebid in comparison with its personal pipeline if given the prospect?
The DOJ additionally highlighted that a few of Google’s obvious concessions – reminiscent of inside paperwork displaying that Google execs significantly thought of the prospect of an AdX divestiture and deemed it possible – had been “hard-won” and that Google “fought tooth and nail” to maintain them from being made public. Moreover, the DOJ famous that a number of judges have severely rebuked Google for its observe of deleting and suppressing damning proof.
Google “will check each phrase, each punctuation” of a behavioral ruling, the DOJ warned, “whittling away” at its precise utility till the punishment is actually nil.
Past belief
However even when the DOJ has efficiently satisfied Decide Brinkema that Google is untrustworthy, she should think about the sensible challenges of setting behavioral treatments.
Throughout the DOJ’s closing arguments, she famous that, placing apart a possible divestiture, behavioral necessities – like a possible mandate to combine with Prebid for open net show stock – could possibly be carried out even whereas a possible attraction by Google is underway.
“My concern is business actuality,” she stated. Contemplating the tempo of innovation in advert tech and the potential reshaping of web promoting by AI, “how shortly can any of this go into impact?” she requested.
“Timelines may be deceiving,” a DOJ lawyer responded.
If Google is arguably capable of push its engineers to do the work required to appreciate its proposed treatments, there’s no motive it may possibly’t do the identical for the DOJ’s proposal. And whereas a divestiture may appear to be an even bigger deal, the federal government believes that it’s really the “cleaner, much less dangerous answer” as a result of no less than it affords a clear break from Google’s management.
Against this, the DOJ stated, behavioral treatments would imply ongoing litigation, with a court-appointed monitor consistently having to trace how Google is testing the wording of the legislation and the court docket’s willingness to implement it.
Nonetheless, Decide Brinkema appeared doubtful of the DOJ’s most important competition and the best way to flip its broad name for a divestiture from one thing “at an summary stage” right into a concrete ruling.
As an example, she identified that the query of who may purchase AdX stays unsure. A possible purchaser like Microsoft would itself set off a separate antitrust evaluation. There is no such thing as a potential acquirer able to take over AdX that doesn’t come together with its personal issues.
Regardless, Decide Brinkema appears resigned to the disagreeable actuality that this case won’t finish with a settlement however have to be determined by a brand new ruling, which is able to inevitably be appealed and argued once more.
“I might see a settlement” that is sensible for this case, Decide Brinkema stated. However with different “looming settlements” in big-money fits being filed by virtually each main advert tech firm on the promote aspect, bridging the hole between the 2 sides appears unlikely.
She and her workforce of clerks have already begun crafting a choice, she stated, which she expects to launch “possibly subsequent 12 months.”
Right here’s hoping.
A DOJ lawyer at one level throughout closing arguments referred to the necessity for fast and assertive motion from the court docket, citing the large bronze letters that span the constructing’s façade: “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.”
