Judge Moves to Break Google’s Ad Monopoly Before Deadline
▼ Summary
– Judge Leonie Brinkema heard final arguments in the Google antitrust case and will issue her ruling next year, acknowledging that time is critical.
– The Justice Department is seeking to force Google to sell its AdX exchange and potentially its publisher ad server to address its ad tech monopoly.
– Google argued that behavioral changes, rather than structural divestitures, are sufficient to remedy the antitrust violations identified by the court.
– Judge Brinkema noted that behavioral remedies could be implemented quickly, while structural changes might be delayed during an expected appeal by Google.
– The case was filed in Virginia’s “Rocket Docket” to expedite proceedings, reflecting the DOJ’s strategy to avoid delays seen in other tech antitrust cases like the one against Meta.
The legal battle over Google’s alleged monopoly in the online advertising market is reaching a critical phase, with a federal judge now weighing whether to order a breakup of the tech giant’s ad technology business. Judge Leonie Brinkema heard final arguments from both Google and the Justice Department on Friday, marking the last opportunity for each side to present its position before her anticipated ruling next year.
Judge Brinkema has acknowledged the urgency of the situation, recognizing that “time is of the essence” in resolving this landmark antitrust case. The Justice Department has pushed for dramatic structural changes, specifically demanding that Google be forced to sell its AdX advertising exchange. Federal prosecutors have also requested that the court retain the option to mandate a sale of Google’s publisher ad server business. Google, in contrast, has maintained that behavioral modifications to its business practices would sufficiently address the competitive concerns identified by the court.
This hearing follows Judge Brinkema’s earlier finding that Google maintained an illegal monopoly across two distinct digital advertising markets. Her ruling also determined that the company had unlawfully tied together two of its advertising tools, creating an unfair competitive environment. The judge appears acutely aware of the legal complexities ahead, particularly the near-certainty that Google will appeal any decision against it. She noted that structural remedies like forced divestitures would likely face significant enforcement challenges during the appeals process, whereas behavioral changes could be implemented much more quickly.
The element of timing has proven decisive in recent tech antitrust litigation. Another federal judge recently rejected the government’s case against Meta, partly because the competitive landscape had shifted dramatically between the initial filing in 2020 and the trial earlier this year. During that period, TikTok evolved from a minor competitor into a substantial rival, undermining the government’s monopoly claims. This dynamic partly explains why the Justice Department initially filed its Google ad tech lawsuit in Virginia’s Eastern District, a venue known for its speedy proceedings and often called the “Rocket Docket” for its accelerated timeline.
(Source: The Verge)
