In the antitrust trial alleging Google had an ad-selling monopoly, “government lawyers have said some of their strongest evidence is in Google’s own internal communications,” reports the Wall Street Journal:
[In 2010] a new crop of ad-tech companies were threatening Google’s bottom line. “One way to make sure we don’t get further behind in the market is picking up the one with the most traction and parking it somewhere…” [wrote YouTube Chief Executive Neal Mohan, who previously ran Google’s display-ads business]. Google ended up buying one such company, AdMeld, for $400 million in 2011. Google shut down AdMeld two years later, after incorporating some of the startup’s technology into its ad exchange, known commonly as AdX.
The Justice Department argued that AdMeld was part of a larger trend: Google acquiring nascent rivals to corner the market and then locking customers into using its products by conditioning access to one software tool on them paying for another… In a 2016 email introduced by the government, Google executive Jonathan Bellack asked colleagues: “Is there a deeper issue with us owning the platform, the exchange, and a huge network? The analogy would be if Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE [New York Stock Exchange]….” The Justice Department also cited a 2018 email from another then-executive, Chris LaSala, who raised concerns internally over the 20% cut that Google takes from many of its AdX customers, saying Google was extracting “irrationally high rent” from users. “I don’t think there is 20% of value in comparing two bids,” wrote LaSala. “AdX is not providing additional liquidity to the market. It is simply running the auction.”
Another former Google executive, Eisar Lipkovitz, testified that Google’s omnipresence in ad-tech gives rise to conflicts of interest. Lipkovitz was rebuffed when he tried to get Google to lower the cut it took from AdX, he testified in a prerecorded deposition. The Justice Department finished presenting its case on Friday. Other witnesses included Google customers. One was Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, who said she felt she had no choice but to use Google technology because the search giant has such market power that switching to another ad server would have meant losing out on millions in advertising revenue.
Google’s lawyer countered that “There will be no witness in this case who can say with clarity where this industry is going in the next five years.”
Or, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, “It makes no sense to focus on display ads, Google argues, when the industry is shifting to apps, social media and streaming services. Far from monopolizing the space, Google is actually losing ground, Google lawyer Karen Dunn said in her opening trial statement…”
Share
Print
