The publisher-focused DOJ v. Google advert tech antitrust trial is completed. A decide will now resolve the destiny of Google’s sell-side advert tech enterprise.
On Friday, either side introduced their closing arguments and fielded ultimate questions from Choose Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court docket for the Japanese District of Virginia.
Even she will’t consider this odyssey is almost over.
“I’m undecided it’s the final set of arguments,” Choose 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 throughout the treatment trial section in September. The DOJ maintains {that a} structural treatment is required, relatively than simply behavioral necessities that might impose coverage modifications however go away Google potential leeway to undermine the ruling’s impression.
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 crammed with 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 solely that Google can’t be trusted.
However has the DOJ confirmed {that a} full divestiture of AdX, Google’s advert change, is critical to return honest competitors to the sell-side of the advert tech market?
Based on Google, no, clearly.
Dunn contended that the DOJ’s bold structural proposal falls brief. 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 Every day
Get our editors’ roundup delivered to your inbox each weekday.
Belief (or the shortage thereof)
To be honest, the DOJ does relaxation its case for divestiture at the least partially on Google’s untrustworthiness.
The DOJ’s attorneys argue that Google is a “recidivist” offender that may doubtless maintain following its monetary incentives, even when meaning breaking the regulation 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 will be trusted to behave pretty when incentives are misaligned. Like, as an example, would Google ship slower bids or responses to Prebid in comparison with its personal pipeline if given the possibility?
The DOJ additionally highlighted that a few of Google’s obvious concessions – comparable to inside paperwork exhibiting that Google execs critically 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 follow 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 basically nil.
Past belief
However even when the DOJ has efficiently satisfied Choose Brinkema that Google is untrustworthy, she should take into account the sensible challenges of setting behavioral treatments.
Through 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 – may very well be carried out even whereas a probable enchantment 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 rapidly can any of this go into impact?” she requested.
“Timelines will be deceiving,” a DOJ legal professional responded.
If Google is arguably in a position to push its engineers to do the work required to understand its proposed treatments, there’s no motive it may well’t do the identical for the DOJ’s proposal. And whereas a divestiture may seem to be a much bigger deal, the federal government believes that it’s really the “cleaner, much less dangerous resolution” as a result of at the least it provides a clear break from Google’s management.
In contrast, the DOJ stated, behavioral treatments would imply ongoing litigation, with a court-appointed monitor continually having to trace how Google is testing the wording of the regulation and the court docket’s willingness to implement it.
Nonetheless, Choose Brinkema appeared doubtful of the DOJ’s principal rivalry and the right way to flip its broad name for a divestiture from one thing “at an summary degree” right into a concrete ruling.
As an illustration, she identified that the query of who may purchase AdX stays unsure. A possible purchaser like Microsoft would itself set off a separate antitrust overview. There isn’t any potential acquirer able to take over AdX that doesn’t come together with its personal issues.
Regardless, Choose Brinkema appears resigned to the disagreeable actuality that this case is not going to finish with a settlement however should 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, Choose Brinkema stated. However with different “looming settlements” in big-money fits being filed by virtually each main advert tech firm on the promote facet, 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 legal professional 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.”
