Mythbuster: What was said, and what was really meant, at the DOJ vs. Google ad tech trial
By Ronan Shields • September 27, 2024 •
Ivy Liu
Google is resting its defense within the web advertising and marketing and marketing and marketing giant’s 2nd antitrust fight with the U.S. Department of Justice in a 12-month window — it misplaced its first case — whereby a judge ruled that its search operations were monopolistic.
Over the final three weeks, attorneys for all aspects dangle duked it out within the jap district of Virginia. The “rocket docket” case is anticipated to be ruled upon by the tip of November, with presiding judge Leonie Brinkema anticipated to listen to rebuttals and shutting arguments the week beginning save September 30.
As the initial trial enters its best furlong, Digiday peels again the niceties of court etiquette to give an interpretation of what turned into as soon as truly intended both on the survey stand and in articles of proof.*
What YouTube CEO Neal Mohan talked about:
“What enact you watched about shopping one of them [rival ad tech companies]… and parking it somewhere?”
– electronic mail proof from Neal Mohan, now YouTube CEO, however beforehand a DoubleClick executive.
What turned into as soon as intended:
‘Let’s aquire our easiest-performing competitor, then figure out how to monetize it to our comprise ends.’
The electronic mail turned into as soon as typed two years after the Federal Trade Commission accredited Google’s aquire of DoubleClick after it made assurances no longer to encroach upon market opponents sooner or later of the early 2010s and earlier than Google’s $400 million aquire of AdMeld in 2011.
What Scope3 CEO Brian O’Kelley talked about:
Google turned into as soon as “vehemently adverse” to Prebid.
– the broken-down AppNexus CEO in a video deposition.
What turned into as soon as intended:
‘Google controls the unreal during the (implied) risk of pulling funding from substitute our bodies.’
Independent ad tech companies, a lot like O’Kelley’s broken-down company house AppNexus, tried to house Prebid within the discover ad substitute’s tech requirements body, IAB Tech Lab. Alternatively, the opposition of its largest-paying donor, Google, intended it turned into as soon as rejected. Hence it formed as an just entity in 2017.
What broken-down Google exec Payam Shodjai talked about:
“The subject isn’t so grand that [Google’s] DBM is procuring for HB [header bidding] stock — the subject is that HB exists :)”
– the prolonged-time Google exec (now at Meta), in electronic mail with then colleague Brad Bender.
What turned into as soon as intended:
‘This hack to upend our money-stuffed recount on top of the ad tech waterfall is annoying.’
The duo later worthy of their substitute that “HB [header bidding] provides publishers better yield… so it’s a no-brainer for publishers to adopt it.” Hence, they weren’t pleased that investors were using Google’s comprise quiz-aspect platform (DBM) to repeat on its stock.
What broken-down Magnite CTO Tom Kershaw talked about:
“I dangle the likelihood to starve to loss of life. I don’t pick to take that probability.”
– Tom Kershaw from the survey stand
What turned into as soon as intended:
‘Yes, in be aware, publishers enact dangle selections to Google’s promote-aspect ad tech, however the actual person that chooses to forego Google’s ad tech will roam hungry.’
A wide piece of Google’s defense is that publishers dangle many selections when it involves monetizing their traffic; they simply pick to expend the ideal and most secure probability, which appropriate so happens to be Google. Kershaw, also a Prebid architect, argued that, truly, that’s appropriate no longer feasible for these wishing to live in employment.
What Google vp, regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland talked about:
“Our merchandise are namely effectively-most in vogue by exiguous agencies who don’t dangle the time and property to expend advertising and marketing and marketing experts.”
– a press open taken from Google’s Trial Media Center
What turned into as soon as intended:
‘Our ad tech is exclusively the ideal; even a non-tech savvy mother-and-pop shop can expend it. This has upended the publishing residing quo, and this trial is nothing however the aggregated moaning of embittered publishers whose enterprise gadgets are old-long-established and middlemen whose tech is 2nd-rate. And that doesn’t point out we have broken any regulations.’
The trial continues.
*Recording tools turned into as soon as prohibited in court. Some of this reporting depends on third-event reporting by a coalition of non-income
https://digiday.com/?p=556541
