This week, the trial for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and several state attorneys general against Google’s ad tech capabilities began in earnest. If the DOJ were to be successful, this case would actually harm the small- and medium-sized businesses that prefer this technology.
Writing for Forbes, former Federal Trade Commission General Counsel Alden Abbott outlines how the DOJ’s case against Google poses a risk to consumers, small businesses, and American innovation:
- “DOJ will find it difficult to prove that Google’s actions harmed competition and consumers in this market. Rather than furthering the public interest, this sort of lawsuit is far more likely to deter innovation in dynamic markets, to the detriment of consumers and the American economy…Suits of this sort will only undermine the U.S. private sector’s incentive to innovate aggressively, to the detriment of the American economy and American consumers.”
In The Washington Examiner, Senator Rand Paul underscores the dynamic and highlights how the premise of the DOJ’s case ignores the reality that the online advertising space is more competitive than ever:
- “Google’s real competition is in the online advertising space. While the court confined Google’s relevant market to general search text ads, the company’s actual competition is with anyone selling online ads or legacy media ads. Advertisers have thousands of choices, and if Google’s ads are not priced competitively, advertisers will quickly switch to one of its many alternatives.”
Industry experts and consumer advocates have outlined how the DOJ’s case will discourage American innovation, undermine competition in the online advertising space, and harm the small- and medium-sized businesses that prefer to use Google’s ad tech. Here’s what they’re saying about this misguided lawsuit:
Matt Schruers, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA):
- “Even as the trial begins, the premise of the DOJ case remains puzzling. Digital companies compete vigorously for advertising dollars across various mediums and screens of all sizes, yet the government artificially draws a line around one approach to ad tech. This is an implausible view of a highly dynamic digital marketplace – to say nothing of print, outdoor, and broadcast.”
Vidushi Dyall, Chamber of Progress:
- “But despite heightened attention to this case in the advertising and publisher world, it’s important to understand what the case is really about legally speaking: overturning long-held precedent about whether even powerful companies can be forced to aid their competitors… The proposed market definition the Department of Justice puts forward is limited to ‘open web display advertising,’ which is a concept that is not only unused and unknown in the ad tech world but also strategically leaves out competition from Amazon, Meta, mobile app ads, and video ads.”
Eric Fruits, Geoffrey Manne, Lazar Radic, International Center for Law and Economics:
- “As we discuss, however, these market definitions put forth by the Texas Complaint and other critics of Google’s adtech business appear to be overly narrow, and risk finding market dominance where it doesn’t exist…With a narrow focus on ‘open display,’ it is quite possible that Google’s dominance can be technically demonstrated. But if, as suggested here, ‘open display’ is really just a small piece of larger relevant market, then any fines and remedies resulting from an erroneously narrow market definition are as likely to raise the cost of business for advertisers, publishers, and intermediaries as they would be to increase competition that benefits market participants…”
- “DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Google regarding ad tech will undermine innovation in digital advertising and harm America’s small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs)… the DOJ’s lawsuit could lead to higher costs for the many SMBs and online publishers that have benefited from innovation in digital advertising.”