Alexandria, VA — Following closing arguments in U.S. v. Google ad tech case in the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 1:23-cv-00108, where the Department of Justice and a coalition of states are suing Google for illegally maintaining monopoly power across the digital advertising industry, the American Economic Liberties Project released the following statement.

“On the final day of the trial, the Antitrust Division capped off its case by highlighting a striking fact: all of its witnesses were real market participants who experienced Google’s monopoly power firsthand, while all but one of Google’s witnesses either worked the company or were paid to testify,” said Laurel Kilgour, Research Manager at the American Economic Liberties Project. “Google’s dominance as buyer, seller, and broker of digital ads across the open web suffocates competition in all of these markets, and allows Google to siphon off extraordinary profits while publishers and advertisers suffer. Businesspeople trying to make a living– and promote journalism– in this ecosystem understand that it is unfairly rigged, and have given powerful testimony about the market realities they live and breathe every day. Judge Brinkema should take their word over that of Google’s hired guns.”

“Combined with a trove of internal documents presented at the trial exposing Google’s candid recognition of its own illegal monopoly, along with Judge Brinkema’s apparent skepticism today of Google’s characterization of case law and the concerns she expressed about Google’s intentional destruction of evidence,” Kilgour added, “we are optimistic that the court will deliver a just outcome.”

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, along with a coalition of states, filed its lawsuit against Google in January 2023, targeting the corporation’s alleged monopolization of the digital advertising market. The DOJ claims that Google’s dominance stems from a series of acquisitions, including its acquisition of the market-leading publisher ad server (called DoubleClick for Publishers) in 2008, and anti-competitive practices that have allowed it to control the entire ad tech ecosystem—effectively locking out rivals and forcing publishers and advertisers to use its services. To take one illustration of how Google’s multi-layered dominance has eliminated competition, an executive from a would-be rival ad exchange testified that his company experimented with cutting its fee for digital ads to zero percent on the auction in an attempt to cut into Google’s business—yet still failed to make a dent.

The trial was also characterized by internal documents in which Google employees recognize the company’s illegal monopoly or anticompetitive behavior. In one example, a Google executive said Google’s ownership across the adtech stack was analogous to ”if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE.” That core conflict of interest previews why the DOJ has signaled an intent to seek structural remedies to break that conflict if it prevails.

The trial followed the heels of the DOJ’s historic win in a separate antitrust case where another judge ruled that Google illegally monopolized online search. That case is currently in the remedies phase.

A collection of the DOJ’s trial exhibits can be found here.

Find our trial coverage from “Big Tech on Trial” here.

Find our letter urging the California State Bar to hold Google attorney Kent Walker accountable for violating California’s Rules of Professional Conduct by coaching Google to hide and destroy evidence here.

Learn more about Economic Liberties here.