US accuses Google of ad monopoly

I was in the courtroom today as the second of two major US government trials against Google got underway. This antitrust case deals with Google's ad business that connects websites and advertisers, in what the DOJ calls a "trifecta" of monopolization that's led to costlier ads and less revenue for newspapers and other website owners. Google's outside attorney, Karen Dunn, fired back that DOJ's case is like a "time capsule, where if you break it open there would be a BlackBerry, an iPod and a Blockbuster Video card" — right before she rushed out for an appointment to prep Vice President Kamala Harris for her debate with former President Donald Trump, as one does. The case's outcome could reshape some of the most basic economics of running a website. https://lnkd.in/eEHB6p9C

https://lnkd.in/eHSp2kEV As Google wrapped up its opening day facing the DOJ today, I'm reflecting on two decades in ad tech and the behind-the-scenes story of how we got here. The government's opening statement hit hard: "One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here." They called out how Google controls the buy side, sell side, and ad exchange market, allowing them to pocket up to 36 cents on every ad dollar. Over the years, I have watched top executives at major agencies resign in frustration, powerless to protect their clients from Google's practices. I've also seen major brands lose millions to their sketchy billing practices. But this narrative of Google's dominance isn’t just about market share. It's about how this monopoly fuels a multi-billion dollar fraud epidemic that's bleeding advertisers dry. Believe it or not, I’ve had this case filing sitting on my desk for the last three years, with bookmarks on the pages that really drive this home. For example, page 78 reveals that Google knew about "click bots" but would only disclose this to Facebook in exchange for a merger. On top of that, for years, Google ran ads across these "Made for Advertising" (MFA) sites unchecked and unchallenged. As the proceedings unfold, I hope we'll finally see light shed on the mechanisms that allowed this level of market control and fraud to persist. It's time for our industry to confront these issues head-on and demand better. The future of ad tech hangs in the balance. Whether Google wins or loses, this trial is a crucial step toward the accountability and transparency our industry desperately needs. @Matt Wasserlauf

#USvGoogle Day 1: Very quick update before running back to the courthouse. - DOJ opened with "control" being the defining characteristic of a monopoly - when one company controls, nobody wins. What they're after is freedom of choice for all market participants. (1) Control competition - acquisitions, (2) control customers - spoke to Google Ads & Adx, and Adx to DFP tying & refuting Google's refusal to deal argument (3) control the rules (First Look, Header Bidding, UPR) - This case is about how Google used search monopoly to build new monopoly over adtech tools. One monopoly is bad enough, but here we have a trifecta. - Outlined witnesses that will testify - will post on that later. Didn't get a full list from Google. - Google's opening arguments - pushback on "relevant markets" - says they have 25% share in a single 2-sided market. Dispute "open web display" as gerrymandered. Point to alleged multi-homing. More of the same from FoF on innovation, quality, privacy, security, and safety. Day 1 Witnesses 1. Tim Wolfe - Gannett / Publisher 2. Andrew Casale - Index Exchange (ad exchange) 3. Joshua Lowcock - President of media at Quad, former Chief Media Officer at UM (buyer) Running back to courthouse for part II of the day. More later.

For folks looking to brush up on the DOJ's antitrust case against Google's ad tech business, Ronan Shields and I break down the basics in this latest video for Digiday Full series of in-depth explainers on the DOJ's allegations here: https://lnkd.in/gr-RRZav

Another week, another antitrust trial for Google. This time, the Department of Justice is targeting the search giant's advertising business. You'll remember last month a judge ruled that Google was acting illegally by paying billions of dollars to make itself the default search engine on devices such as the iPhone. The issue in that case, however, was that it's not yet clear what possible remedy could solve the problem and bring competition back to the search industry. With ad tech, it's much more straightforward. The lines down which a judge could split Google's business into smaller pieces are obvious, as are the pro-competitive effects if that were to happen. That's the subject of my Bloomberg Opinion column today. #ads #google #adtech