Google's Monopoly Troubles: A Rough Ride for the Tech Giant
Court finds Google dominates ad tech market, declaring monopolistic status
Zen Media CEO Shama Hyder challenges the DOJ's call for Google's breakup, focusing on the sale of its Chrome browser.
Recently, a federal judge ruled in favor of Alphabet-owned Google having monopolies in the online publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. The verdict was issued by U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema.
In her ruling, she accused Google of engaging in a series of anticompetitive acts to monopolize these markets by tying its publisher ad server and ad exchange through contractual policies and technological integration since over a decade, thereby consolidating its power. Moreover, Google allegedly imposed anticompetitive policies on its customers and eliminated desirable product features, causing substantial harm to Google's customers and consumers alike.
*GOOGLE'S $32 BILLION PURCHASE OF WIZ SPOTLIGHTED*
The decision leaves room for another hearing to determine penalties for Google, including selling off parts of its business, which will face another trial yet to be scheduled. This ruling follows a similar judgment against Google in a case concerning online search.
In light of the verdict, Judge Brinkema found insufficient evidence to support the federal government and states’ claims that Google had a monopoly in the advertiser ad networks market.
The decision marks a significant win for the plaintiffs, paving the way to curb Google's monopolistic practices in the ad-tech industry.
*GOOGLE IN BREACH OF FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAWS*
Last August, another federal judge found Alphabet guilty of reinforcing its dominant position over online searches and related advertising, a decision that Google plans to appeal.
In response to this ruling, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice stated, "Google’s dominance is a threat to free speech and free markets."
Attorney General Pamela Bondi and Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division asserted that Google has exploited its power to censor and deplatform American voices, as well as hide information exposing its illegal conduct.
Following the Thursday ruling, Lee-Ann Mulholland, Google vice president of regulatory affairs, contested the ruling, stating, "We won half of this case and will appeal the other half." According to Mulholland, "our advertiser tools" and the company’s acquisitions such as DoubleClick, did not reduce competition.
The trial over Google's ad-tech lasted a few weeks in September following a lawsuit filed by the federal government and eight states in January 2023, joined by nine other states in April of the same year.
The trial over Google's online search practices will take place next week, aligned with the Department of Justice's request for Google to sell its Chrome browser and other measures to lessen its dominance in online searches.
Reuters and FOX Business' Grady Trimble and Eric Revell contributed to this report.
Additional Insights:
- The court found Google Project Poirot, Unified Pricing Rules, and Right of First Refusal to be anticompetitive practices, constituting unlawful monopolization under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
- The judge issued a landmark ruling that echoed the DOJ's sentiments, expressing concerns that Google's monopolistic practices threaten free speech and free markets.
- Google faced allegations of market manipulation, exclusionary tactics, and stifling interoperability on several occasions.
- Zen Media CEO Shama Hyder, despite challenging the DOJ's call for Google's breakup, may find it challenging to contest the sale of its Chrome browser, given the recent court rulings against Google for monopolies in the online publisher ad server and ad exchange markets.
- The upcoming trial focused on Google's ad-tech practices will determine penalties for Google, potentially leading to the sale of parts of its business.
- In response to the ruling, Google Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Ann Mulholland contested it, asserting that Google's acquisitions such as DoubleClick did not reduce competition in the markets.
- The court found several of Google's practices, including Project Poirot, Unified Pricing Rules, and Right of First Refusal, to be anticompetitive, constituting unlawful monopolization under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
- The ruling against Google raises concerns about its dominance and potential threat to free speech and free markets, according to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
