"Google rigged the game," DOJ argues in landmark antitrust trial

The US Justice Department (DoJ) concluded its antitrust trial against Google on Friday, alleging the tech company has illegally monopolised the online advertising industry. The case, heard in a federal court in Virginia, represents the second major government legal challenge against Alphabet, Google’s parent company, over accusations of anticompetitive practices.

The trial focused on claims that Google unfairly dominated three critical areas of the digital advertising ecosystem: publisher ad servers, advertiser ad networks, and ad exchanges. These platforms enable transactions between buyers and sellers of online advertisements, and prosecutors argued that Google’s practices stifled competition.

"Rigging" the rules

In closing arguments, DoJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum painted a stark picture of Google’s dominance. He accused the company of manipulating the very structure of the advertising market to maintain its control.

“Google rigged the rules of the road,” Teitelbaum said, urging US District Judge Leonie Brinkema to hold the company accountable. He characterised the case as evidence of a “long-standing pattern of anticompetitive conduct,” asserting that Google’s actions were not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy to dominate the market.

Fellow DoJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood underscored the case's significance, invoking Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities to describe the disparity between the government’s and Google’s perspectives on the advertising market. Wood highlighted the complexity of the task before Judge Brinkema, who must determine whether Google’s interpretation or the government’s portrayal of the industry’s dynamics better reflects reality.

Google Pushes Back on Allegations

Representing Google, attorney Karen Dunn countered the government’s claims, arguing the case lacked substantive proof and ignored robust competition in the digital advertising industry.

“The DoJ is asking the court to overrule established antitrust precedents,” Dunn said. She contended that Google’s business decisions were legitimate and well within the bounds of fair competition, dismissing the accusations as “unsupported by the law.”

Dunn emphasised that the government’s narrative failed to account for the diverse players in the advertising ecosystem, suggesting that Google’s practices did not constitute monopolistic behaviour.

Publishers Testify to High Costs of Switching

Throughout the trial, publishers provided testimony detailing their reliance on Google’s advertising tools and the challenges of seeking alternatives.

A witness from News Corp testified that the company faced significant financial risks when contemplating a shift away from Google. The publisher estimated that switching providers in 2017 would have resulted in at least $9 million in lost advertising revenue.

These accounts strengthened the DoJ’s argument that Google’s dominance creates barriers to competition, making it economically unfeasible for companies to abandon its services, even when dissatisfied.

Potential Impact of the Case

While analysts suggest this trial carries less financial risk for Google than previous antitrust cases, the outcome could reshape the digital advertising landscape. A ruling against Google could force changes in how the company conducts its advertising business, potentially opening the market to greater competition.

The stakes remain high for the tech giant, with the case spotlighting the balance between corporate innovation and monopolistic overreach. Judge Brinkema is expected to deliberate carefully, with a decision anticipated in the coming months.

For Google, this trial represents another chapter in its ongoing battle with regulators worldwide over its market practices. For the broader digital advertising ecosystem, the verdict could set a critical precedent.