Google’s Main Argument in Monopoly Case Failed by US Judge

A federal judge has thrown cold water on one of Alphabet Inc.’s key arguments in a Justice Department lawsuit over allegations that Google monopolizes ad technology.

During closing arguments in the lawsuit against the tech giant, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said she disagreed. Google’s attempts to build on an earlier antitrust lawsuit The judge in the case involving American Express Co. interrupted Google’s lawyer on Monday to say he was carefully reviewing the 2018 Supreme Court decision in the old case.

“We’re looking at a completely different setup here compared to Amex,” he said on the closing day of the hearing in Alexandria, Virginia.

The lawsuit is one of several filed against Google over antitrust issues. In another, the Justice Department is trying to force Alphabet to sell its Chrome browser after winning a landmark ruling that found the company was illegally monopolizing online search.

In Monday’s lawsuit, the Justice Department and a group of states sued Google in 2023, arguing that the company illegally monopolized three separate markets for ad technology: sell-side tools used by websites, called ad servers; advertising exchanges; and buy-side tools used by advertisers, known as ad networks. The company countered this, saying it was wrong to divide its tools into these groups and that its business was better understood as a single marketplace in which website publishers and advertisers transacted.

Brinkema’s objection came as Google lawyers cited the American Express case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that judges must look at how a product or service affects different groups of customers. Google argues that some of its actions, which the Justice Department says hurt website publishers, can be justified because it was intended to help advertisers.

Brinkema said he had “problems” in applying the decision regarding the credit card market to Google.

But Google attorney Karen Dunn argued that the company’s ad tech tools function similar to credit cards by aiming to “match” online ad buyers and sellers.

He said the vehicles move to “facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers.” “You can’t look at one side alone.”

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Justin Teresi, who participated in Monday’s discussions, said he believes Brinkema will rule in favor of the government based on a different legal argument.

“There is likely to be a finding of liability in some claims, particularly those related to the publisher’s ad server and linking,” said Teresi, who focuses on antitrust litigation and policy.

The Justice Department argued Monday that the Amex ruling applies only to credit card processing platforms, not all markets where a company does business with two groups of customers. For example, the courts did not make this decision for newspapers that sold ads to advertisers and news to consumers.

“Google has been a monopolist once, twice, three times,” said Justice Department attorney Aaron Teitelbaum. The company’s “internal documents make clear that this is three markets, not one.”

Google’s Dunn said U.S. antitrust law allows the company to decide whether to interoperate its products with those of rivals. Forcing Google to provide the technology and resources that would enable its ad tech to work seamlessly with competing tools would stifle innovation, he said.

Brinkema, who previously said he planned to make a decision by the end of the year, did not provide an update on the timing.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is syndicated.)