Latest news with #DoubleClickforPublishers
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Google is fighting a new DOJ bid to break up another part of its empire
The US government got a second chance to try to dismantle Google's (GOOG, GOOGL) stronghold over the internet in a hearing on Friday meant to sort out how best to restore competition in two online advertising markets. Judge Leonie Brinkema, a US federal district judge in Alexandria, Va., set a "remedies" trial date of Sept. 22 for the tech giant to face off against the Justice Department's effort to break up Google's ad tech monopoly. Google now has to defend that part of its empire against a breakup while also doing the same in a separate antitrust trial where the DOJ is seeking the divestment of the tech giant's Chrome search browser. Last August, in that case, US District Judge Amit Mehta found Google liable for illegally monopolizing the general search engine market and the market for general search engine text. He is now considering divestments of Google's highly valuable Chrome browser and its Android operating system, along with limitations on its implementation of artificial intelligence tools. In the ad tech monopoly case, Judge Brinkema in April sided with the DOJ and 17 state attorneys general by ruling that the tech giant used illegal tactics to block competition in markets where online advertisements are bought and sold. That ruling gave the judge discretion to permit or deny the government's request to consider divestments known as 'structural remedies.' Specifically, the DOJ has argued that Google's Ad Manager suite, which includes DoubleClick for Publishers, a publisher-side ad server, and Google Ad Exchange, its exchange platform where buyers and sellers broker deals for online ads, should be spun off. Google tried to get the judge to eliminate the option of divestitures. It was "going for a kill shot,' said Daniel McCuaig, a former trial attorney with the Justice Department's antitrust division, who is now a partner with Cohen Milstein. But Google didn't get its way, which heightens its business risks as it fights to hold on to multiple subsidiaries in two major antitrust defeats suffered over the past year. However, Judge Brinkema did express concern about overreaching remedies during the hearing, noting that the wrong remedies can cause additional harm. Publishers, for example, may see no benefit if Google's ad server were demolished. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, said, "The DOJ's additional proposals to force a divestiture of our ad tech tools go well beyond the Court's findings, have no basis in law, and would harm publishers and advertisers." Google's lawyers told the judge that divestiture should be excluded as a possible remedy and that the court should instead focus only on changing how the company operates its businesses. A company spokesperson added that divestitures would be an unprecedented remedy in the case, given that the court found the acquisitions did not harm competition. McCuaig said that at the heart of the ad tech decision, Judge Brinkema found that Google enshrined its illegal monopoly by tying together its advertising technologies, which reinforced each other and allowed it to charge supracompetitive prices. Ideally, he said, the government would likely want the two businesses sold off to different buyers. Google's acquisition of DoubleClick was reviewed and cleared by the US Federal Trade Commission by a four-to-one vote in 2007, based on its finding that the deal was unlikely to substantially lessen competition. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal Court Finds Google Violated Antitrust Law in Adtech, Potentially Reshaping the Digital Advertising Industry
In a landmark decision, a federal judge ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly over its adtech business, a move that could force the tech giant to divest one of its most profitable divisions and upend the infrastructure underpinning much of the online ad industry. Following a three-week bench trial, the court found that Google violated antitrust law by maintaining monopoly power in two critical areas: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges. Ad servers are used by publishers to manage their ad inventory, and ad exchanges helps publishers sell ad space through supply-side platforms-in this case, specifically through Google's AdX product. The judge also found that Google unlawfully tied its ad server, formerly known as DoubleClick for Publishers (or DFP), with AdX in violation of antitrust laws. "In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web," wrote Judge Brinkema. Inside the First Day of Google's Adtech Antitrust Trial Andrew Casale, president and CEO of Index Exchange told ADWEEK: "The judge got it right and this ultimately marks a check on big tech.' Casale testified on opening day at the trial in Virginia, describing it as "one of the most intimidating experiences" of his life. "This is going to usher in an era of a more competitive open Internet," he added. Google's advertiser-focused products were not found in violation. Brinkema dismissed the DOJ's claims to establish a distinct market for advertiser's ad networks. The ruling means Google has a monopoly on its sell-side tools but not on its buy-side tools. Court documents also reveal that the judge found no valid security or quality justification for Google's AdX-DFP tie. Industry experts, including Casale and Jay Friedman, CEO of ad agency Goodway Group, testified that Google's adtech was no more effective at preventing fraud, malware, or spam than other providers. Per Casale, header bidding posed no greater risk of fraud or malware than bidding within Google's adtech stack. Meanwhile, Friedman stated that all large ad exchanges provide "similar quality inventory to … any of the other ones." However, Brinkema stated that Google's justification for the AdX-DFP tie was either "pretextual or, at best, incidental to the primary purpose of the tie, which was to acquire and maintain market power in the open-web ad exchange and publisher ad server markets." The ruling opens the door to remedies that could dramatically reshape how digital ads are bought and sold. Google holds a solid grip on 25.6% of the $303 billion U.S. digital ad market, according to eMarketer. Meta follows with 21.3%, and Amazon holds 13.9%. While the court has not yet determined what structural changes-if any-will be imposed, the case stands as one of the most aggressive antitrust actions against a U.S. tech company in decades. It also marks Google's second major legal defeat in the past year, following a separate DOJ antitrust case targeting the company's dominance in search. In that trial, the DOJ called for Google to divest its Chrome browser. Next, Brinkema will determine appropriate remedies for the adtech antitrust trial, which could include forcing Google to divest all or part of its lucrative adtech stack that could have far reaching implications. "We commend this ruling, and this is a good day for advertisers, publishers, the industry and the public at large," said Arielle Garcia, director of intelligence at industry watchdog Check My Ads.
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Google Canada denies abusing market power in Competition Bureau suit
OTTAWA — Google denies abusing its market power in a written response to the Competition Bureau's lawsuit over the tech giant's advertising practices in Canada. In court documents filed Friday, Google and its Canadian arm argued that the company does not have a "substantial degree of market power." The Competition Bureau is suing Google over alleged anticompetitive conduct in its online advertising business. It wants Google to sell two of its services and pay a penalty. The company disputes the bureau's definition of the market, arguing that by focusing on web advertising it zeroed in on a narrow subset of digital advertising. The markets "in which Google is alleged to have abused its dominant position are untethered either to commercial reality or to proper and sensible economic and legal analyses," Google argued in the court filing. Google also says the financial penalty being sought by the bureau is unconstitutional. In launching the suit against Google, the bureau said its investigation found the company "unlawfully" tied together its ad tech tools to maintain market dominance. The ads that appear on websites are usually bought and sold through automated auctions. Companies use a number of tools to manage ad inventory, facilitate purchases or act as an intermediary between buyers and sellers. Google owns four of the largest online ad technology services used in Canada: DoubleClick for Publishers, AdX, Display & Video 360 and Google Ads. The bureau has estimated Google holds about 90 per cent market share in publisher ad servers, 70 per cent in advertiser networks, 60 per cent in demand-side platforms and 50 per cent in ad exchanges. The bureau alleges that Google has abused its dominant position in the web advertising market, discouraging competition, inhibiting innovation, inflating advertising costs and reducing publisher revenues. It wants Google to sell DoubleClick for Publishers and AdX. In its response, Google denies engaging in illegal or inappropriate conduct, and objects to the divestiture order. Google says the bureau's claim that it unlawfully tied together its ad tech tools is false. It says that by focusing on web advertising the bureau is ignoring advertising on other platforms such as in mobile applications and through connected television platforms. It also accuses the bureau of splicing that narrowly defined market into "artificial silos" in order to make its arguments. The company accuses the Competition Bureau and its commissioner of violating its constitutional rights. The bureau has demanded that Google pay a penalty equal to three times the value of the benefit it derived from anticompetitive practices or, "if that amount cannot be reasonably determined," three per cent of Google's worldwide gross revenues. Google says a penalty of that size is "constitutionally impermissible" and "contrary to the public interest." "The very threat of such a fine will diminish or negate the incentives of Google, Google Canada and many other businesses to invest and innovate, thus undermining consumer welfare," it said. The Competition Bureau did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Its investigation dates back to at least 2021. The matter is being dealt with at the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that hears cases brought forward by the competition commissioner about non-compliance with the Competition Act. Google says that contrary to claims made by the bureau, the ad tech industry is competitive and innovative, and that Google "faces stiff competition" including from other giants like Microsoft, Meta and Amazon. "Google's share of the relevant market has declined over time while industry output has increased dramatically, quality of service has improved and prices associated with the ad tech services in question have remained stable or declined," the company said. Google says that if the bureau is successful in its suit, it would "undermine rather than promote innovation and competition in Canada." — With files from Tara Deschamps This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 17, 2025. Rosa Saba, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
