Google argues the DOJ failed to define the relevant markets and is challenging behavior that is lawful.
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—Attorneys for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google made their final arguments on Nov. 25 in a high-profile antitrust case that questions whether the tech giant violated federal law through its digital advertising practices.
The case started last year when the DOJ filed a complaint alleging that Google had engaged in anticompetitive conduct with its advertising technology platforms like Google Ads.
Closing arguments on Nov. 25 came at the end of a bench trial in Virginia that started in September and followed a major ruling against Google across the river in Washington. Both cases could bring major changes for Google and inform how future courts handle antitrust claims.
DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum told Eastern District of Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema that Google rigged the rules of advertising auctions and generally perpetrated anticompetitive conduct across three technologies that facilitate digital ad sales.
In its closing argument, the DOJ used statements from Google employees in an attempt to show that they were focused on dominating the market in an unfair way. Among other things, Teitelbaum argued that Google pulled the levers of its various advertising technologies to strengthen its dominance and forced businesses to work with them in order to access a vast pool of demand.
Karen Dunn, a partner at Paul Weiss, represented Google and said that the DOJ had used “cherry-picked” communications from the tech giant’s employees. Overall, she said, Google’s record showed innovation in the advertising technology space in response to competitive forces.
Google’s prices decreased, she said, alongside an increase in ad spending and the number of quality transactions.
Each side clashed over whether social media platforms like Facebook represented the type of competition in advertising technology that would undermine the idea that Google exercised monopoly power.
Much of the closing arguments focused on whether the DOJ was even presenting Brinkema with the right categorization of markets for deciding whether Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct.
