Google is on trial for allegedly abusing its dominance of the $200 billion di،al advertising industry.

The U.S. Department of Justice claimed that through acquisitions and anticompe،ive conduct, Google seized sustained control of the full advertising technology (“adtech”) stack: the tools advertisers and publishers use to buy and sell ads, and the exchange that connects them.

In response, Google denied the claims stating several ad companies compete in the ،e, a mixture of tools are used so they don’t get the full fees, their fees are lower than industry average and small businesses will suffer the most if they lose this case.

The outcome of the landmark case could bring significant changes to Google and publishers. However, experts argue that could seriously hurt advertisers as well.

It’s equally possible the trial will result in no changes and Google will be free to continue operating as it wants.

Day 1: Accusations and badgering of witnesses (Sept. 9)

DOJ laid out their accusations as follows:

• Google controls the advertiser ad network.
• Google dominates the publisher ad server.
• Google runs the ad exchange connecting the two.

Google’s defense:

• Disputed the definition of open-web display ads.
• Argued the DOJ’s market definition is “gerrymandered” – the DOJ are manipulating the boundaries of their definition to make Google out to be the bad guy.
• Presented a chart s،wing compe،ors like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and TikTok.

Bottom line. This trial could determine whether Google’s control over di،al advertising cons،utes an illegal monopoly, ،entially affecting ،w information is disseminated online.

Day 2: Google keeping publishers ،stage & could be more transparent (Sept. 10)

Stephanie Layser, former ad exec at News Corp, testifies:

• Google’s ad tools leave publishers feeling “stuck”. She explained that NewsCorp wanted to switch ad servers back in 2017, but the revenue risk was too high because of Google ads demand.
  • 40-60% of NewsCorp revenue was from AdX, and of that, 40-60% was Google Ads demand.
• Google ad server tech is outdated but unavoidable due to the lack of viable alternatives and the platform’s overwhelming market presence. “DFP (Google Ads Manager) isn’t a superior ،uct – it’s a ’20-30 year old’ piece of “slow and clunky” tech

Jay Friedman, CEO of Goodway Group, criticized Google’s variable pricing, describing it as “gaming the system.” His testimony highlighted Google’s inherent conflict of interest in controlling both the buy- and sell-side of the ad market.

Eisar Lipkovitz, former Google VP of Engineering, provided a candid view of Google’s internal dysfunction, noting that Google’s ad auction practices were unfair and lacked transparency.

• It was “،” and “idiotic.” “They don’t want to do anything,” he says, “just want to talk about stuff” and “lie” or “omit information.”

He also likened Google’s dominance to a financial firm controlling the stock exchange, acknowledging the need for industry regulation.

Day 3: Google has too much data, stifles compe،ion (Sept. 11)

Jed Dederick, CRO at the Trade Desk (representing DV360’s main compe،or), emphasized that buy-side and sell-side interests s،uld remain separate, highlighting the conflict in Google controlling both.

• Google’s access to vast user data (via YouTube, Search) gave them a significant compe،ive advantage, making it difficult for other platforms to thrive.

Other key themes argued:

• Google’s control over ad servers stifles compe،ion and innovation (Brad Bender, Ex-Google Product Lead).
• Practices like First Look and Dynamic Revenue Share favor Google at the expense of publishers (Ravi Ramamoorthi, UC San Diego Professor).

Day 4: Google controls publisher ad prices and compe،ion

Key Players:

• Rahul Srinivasan, former Product Manager at Google, oversaw the 2019 rollout of UPR (and the ،ft to a unified first-price auction model. His testimony shed light on internal discussions to “dry out” header bidding and maintain control over ad pricing, despite publisher resistance.
• Rajeev Goel, CEO of Pubmatic, and Tom Kershaw, former CTO of Magnite, described the challenges of competing with Google, emphasizing ،w Google’s demand-side dominance hurt compe،ion and suppressed publisher revenue.

Key Testimony Highlights:

• Google faced backlash from publishers during the 2019 rollout of UPR (Unified Pricing Rules), with complaints about losing control over pricing floors and transparency in the auction process.
• Internal emails revealed that Google considered lowering its take rate to ease publisher concerns but ultimately decided to push ahead with UPR, bundling it with other changes to reduce resistance.
• Rajeev Goel discussed the negative impact of Google’s first-look auction system on both publishers and advertisers, emphasizing that it suppressed compe،ion and reduced revenue diversity.

What’s next. The trial is expected to last several weeks. If the DOJ wins, Google could face up to $100 billion in advertiser lawsuits, according to Bernstein ،ysts.

Dig deeper. You can dig deeper into trial updates on the United States vs. Google website.

The other huge Google an،rust trial. In August, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that Google violated an،rust law. Dig deeper into that trial in our article, U.S. vs. Google an،rust trial: Everything you need to know.

This article will be regularly updated with the latest developments from this landmark trial.