The American Department of Justice just completed prosecution in the high-profile Google antitrust case. This is where the judge ruled that Google was guilty of operating a monopoly with its advertising products.
The court shared how the anticompetitive practices enabled it to dominate other crucial components of the massive digital advertising world for nearly 10 years. More details shared included how the American District Judge explained how the Android maker chose to intentionally engage in the most anticompetitive actions.
Google worked hard to establish a mighty control over the publisher ad servers and advertising exchange world. It similarly unlawfully chose to link its publisher advertising servers and advertising exchanges as one through different contracts and tech linking.
Such practices really caused serious harm to publishers and people around the internet.
This is important for Google as it marks the company’s second biggest antitrust loss after losing the case related to monopoly in search before. As a result, many see the world of online ads altering after such a ruling.
The US DOJ continued to argue more about how Google tried to practice monopoly behavior in three separate markets of the ad tech space. One was publisher advertising tools, next it was advertiser ad networks, and lastly it was the advertising exchanges that assist with transactions amongst those.
The case is now based on how the tech giant’s dominance gave rise to significant profits as they try to fight back against the claims. The Android maker shared its reply to the ruling on the X app.
Google mentioned how many of its tools don’t impact competition and that they don’t agree with this decision being made by the court of law. Google also reminded the public that they did end up winning 50% of this case and will now opt to appeal the rest.
Google claims its ad tools and acquisitions didn’t impact competition. They disagree with the ruling about their publisher tools. It also sent a reminder about how many choices there are and how nobody is forced to opt in and use them if they don’t want to. But the majority do turn to Google as their advertising products are not only cheap, effective, but also simple in use.
The tech giant also shared how the definition of the market, which is shared by the government, is contrived and how it failed to reflect the reality of the situation. The firm then argued how integrated tools benefit clients and have real business justifications.
The ruling comes as the company and the Department of Justice start preparing solutions on how to combat the matter. There is a proposition to break up Google by separating Chrome and making it responsible for the control of its search results. The court shared how it would need to figure out the right solution for the company’s advertising monopoly violation. So we might be seeing some major structural changes in the current ad business model.
Image: DIW-Aigen
Read next: Why America Is "Tech Hoarding" — and It's Not the Economy
The court shared how the anticompetitive practices enabled it to dominate other crucial components of the massive digital advertising world for nearly 10 years. More details shared included how the American District Judge explained how the Android maker chose to intentionally engage in the most anticompetitive actions.
Google worked hard to establish a mighty control over the publisher ad servers and advertising exchange world. It similarly unlawfully chose to link its publisher advertising servers and advertising exchanges as one through different contracts and tech linking.
Such practices really caused serious harm to publishers and people around the internet.
This is important for Google as it marks the company’s second biggest antitrust loss after losing the case related to monopoly in search before. As a result, many see the world of online ads altering after such a ruling.
The US DOJ continued to argue more about how Google tried to practice monopoly behavior in three separate markets of the ad tech space. One was publisher advertising tools, next it was advertiser ad networks, and lastly it was the advertising exchanges that assist with transactions amongst those.
The case is now based on how the tech giant’s dominance gave rise to significant profits as they try to fight back against the claims. The Android maker shared its reply to the ruling on the X app.
Google mentioned how many of its tools don’t impact competition and that they don’t agree with this decision being made by the court of law. Google also reminded the public that they did end up winning 50% of this case and will now opt to appeal the rest.
Google claims its ad tools and acquisitions didn’t impact competition. They disagree with the ruling about their publisher tools. It also sent a reminder about how many choices there are and how nobody is forced to opt in and use them if they don’t want to. But the majority do turn to Google as their advertising products are not only cheap, effective, but also simple in use.
The tech giant also shared how the definition of the market, which is shared by the government, is contrived and how it failed to reflect the reality of the situation. The firm then argued how integrated tools benefit clients and have real business justifications.
The ruling comes as the company and the Department of Justice start preparing solutions on how to combat the matter. There is a proposition to break up Google by separating Chrome and making it responsible for the control of its search results. The court shared how it would need to figure out the right solution for the company’s advertising monopoly violation. So we might be seeing some major structural changes in the current ad business model.
Read next: Why America Is "Tech Hoarding" — and It's Not the Economy
