Google's US antitrust trial: “Google rigged the rules of the road” DoJ lawyer
This case marks the second major legal challenge by the government against Alphabet, Google’s parent company, over anticompetitive practices.
ADVERTISEMENT
The U.S. Justice Department (DoJ) concluded its case against Google, accusing the tech giant of illegally monopolizing the online advertising industry, in a high-stakes antitrust trial that wrapped up Virginia, US. This case marks the second major legal challenge by the government against Alphabet, Google’s parent company, over anticompetitive practices. The trial centered on allegations that Google cornered the market in several key areas: publisher ad servers, advertiser ad networks, and ad exchanges, which facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers of online ads, Reuters reported.
The report stated that in his closing argument, DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum argued that Google had manipulated the very rules that govern the digital advertising ecosystem. “Google rigged the rules of the road,” Teitelbaum told the court, urging U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to hold the company accountable for its monopolistic behavior. He framed the case as one of a long-standing pattern of anticompetitive conduct, emphasizing that Google’s actions were not isolated, but part of a broader strategy to dominate the market.
Julia Tarver Wood, another DOJ attorney, likened the case to the opening lines of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, noting the stark contrast between the government’s and Google’s interpretation of the ad market. Wood highlighted the challenge before Judge Brinkema: to decide which version of the industry’s state of affairs — Google's or the government's — was closer to the truth.
On the other side, Google’s legal team, led by attorney Karen Dunn, argued that the DOJ had failed to prove its case and was asking the court to overrule established antitrust precedents. Dunn contended that the government’s narrative ignored the robust competition in the digital advertising sector and mischaracterized Google’s business practices. She dismissed the government’s claims as unsupported by the law, adding that Google's decisions were legitimate within the bounds of business competition.
During the trial, publishers testified about the difficulty of shifting away from Google, even when the company introduced features they found objectionable. One witness from News Corp testified that switching away from Google in 2017 would have cost the company at least $9 million in lost ad revenue, according to the Reuters report of the trial.
The report added, while analysts believe the case carries less financial risk than a prior antitrust ruling against Google’s search monopoly, the outcome could still have significant implications for the digital advertising landscape.
