In a blow to Google’s widespread legal strategy, the company has faced a double judicial loss in the ongoing US antitrust case. This is the second time in less than a year that the tech behemoth has lost big decisions. The case against Google was originally filed by the US Department of Justice, in concert with 17 states. They just sued the tech behemoth for illegally monopolizing the technology that determines where online ads are placed.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google had “wilfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts,” enabling it to “acquire and maintain monopoly power” in the online advertising market. The joint lawsuit asserted that Google controls monopolistic companies on the advertiser side and publisher/seller side of the ad market. This ownership, combined with its ad exchange, allows Google to manipulate the marketplace in anti-competitive ways.
Although the court dismissed a third count in the case, Google’s legal team contended that the prosecution focused excessively on the company’s historical practices, overlooking other large players in the ad tech sector, such as Amazon. Lee-Ann Mulholland, an attorney representing Google, stated, “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half.”
This ruling only compounds Google’s challenges as it engages in the regulatory crossfire. Earlier this fall the federal government proposed to break Google up. Under this scenario, that would involve divesting major pieces of the company, including its lucrative and widely used Chrome browser. The ramifications of such a breakup could cut the ground from underneath our current digital reality and repair our tech ecosystem profoundly.
Speaking after the announcement, Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, took issue with Google’s behavior in the market. He stated, “Google has repeatedly used its market power to self-preference its own products, stifling innovation and depriving premium publishers worldwide of critical revenue needed to sustain high-quality journalism and entertainment.”
Nonetheless, Google insists that the ruling was wrong and that it will ultimately win. Mulholland asserted, “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.” She noted that “the Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don’t harm competition.”
The current debate over Google’s monopoly status underscores the conflict between innovation and regulation in the tech sector. The firm is now preparing to appeal the latest ruling. It remains to be seen how these ongoing legal battles will impact Uber’s own operations and the broader market dynamics with competitors like Lyft.