{"id":9305,"date":"2024-09-30T16:28:28","date_gmt":"2024-09-30T16:28:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/?p=9305"},"modified":"2024-09-30T16:30:13","modified_gmt":"2024-09-30T16:30:13","slug":"googles-ad-advantage-recent-antitrust-litigation-in-federal-courts-has-rippling-effects-on-big-tech%ef%bf%bc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/googles-ad-advantage-recent-antitrust-litigation-in-federal-courts-has-rippling-effects-on-big-tech%ef%bf%bc\/","title":{"rendered":"Google\u2019s Ad Advantage: Recent Antitrust Litigation in Federal Courts has Rippling Effects on Big Tech"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The current antitrust lawsuit over Google\u2019s dominance in the digital marketing and advertising space could influence the way Big Tech antitrust litigation is handled in the future and change the current landscape of ad tech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Department of Justice brought allegations against Google in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, arguing that Google has abused its dominance<\/a> in the digital advertising space and that its current practices constitute an illegal monopoly. The lawsuit focuses specifically on \u201copen web display marketing<\/a>,\u201d which are the advertisements that appear scattered throughout webpages as clickable boxes when browsing the web on a computer. The government argues that Google has manipulated the digital ad market<\/a> to restrict consumer\u2019s choices and has inflated the cost for both the ad purchasers and online publishers. The government further alleges that Google has control over all the technology<\/a> behind online advertising. As a result, the government alleges that Google is able to keep as much as 36 cents to the dollar<\/a> for every ad bought.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google denies such claims by contending that the DOJ has misrepresented the ad Tech market<\/a>, and grossly overstates the importance and prevalence of open web display marketing, as the market has shifted. Increasingly, advertisers prefer to buy ads on social media<\/a> and online retailers rather than traditional open web ads. Google points to companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, and TikTok, all of whom are online platforms with ad services, as proof of competition within the entire ad Tech market<\/a>. Further, Google argues that the government\u2019s case fails to account for the amount of money that they have invested<\/a> in the technology to ensure a better ad experience for advertisers, publishers, and consumers. Finally, they dispute the percentage of profit they get from each advertisement and claim that competitors take an even higher profit cut.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current antitrust lawsuit over Google\u2019s dominance in the digital marketing and advertising space could influence the way Big Tech antitrust litigation is handled in the future and change the current landscape of ad tech.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The trial, which began only a month after a federal court found that Google had an illegal monopoly on the internet search market<\/a>, is a potential landmark case on how antitrust law is applied to Big Tech. Big Tech has been a focus of federal antitrust regulators<\/a> since 2020, with Google being the first major tech company accused by the government<\/a> of creating an illegal monopoly in over a decade. While the Google trials are the first Big Tech Antitrust cases in some time, it will be not the last in the coming years. Already, Apple<\/a> and Amazon<\/a>, face impending antitrust suits for dominating the smartphone market and a price adjustment algorithm, respectively.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With the recent surge of Big Tech antitrust cases, how courts decide to rule on antitrust cases concerning tech giants like Google could set a precedent for the forthcoming trials. Additionally, the outcome of the Google cases, in combination, might encourage other tech companies facing lawsuits to settle if it seems like courts have an unfavorable disposition toward Big Tech in antitrust litigation. However, despite there being a verdict against Google for their practices in the antitrust suit over the internet search market, it is unclear as of yet how Google will be punished because a separate trial<\/a> will be held to determine what the appropriate remedy is. Though it may be some time before the consequences are clear, the government is set to propose remedies<\/a> in the coming weeks.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Google is forced to change its ad tech practices, there could be significant shifts in the market for those seeking advertisements, ad publishers, and even Google\u2019s competitors like Microsoft. If the DOJ wins against Google in the current litigation, Google may be forced to sever either the demand-side or supply-side of their ad tech business or the ad server itself<\/a>; any of which have rippling implications throughout the ad tech market.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the trial progresses, the outcome may become more apparent, and the implications of the litigation could change vastly as more information is revealed. The trial began in early September and is progressing quickly, with closing arguments set to occur in late November, and a decision to be issued by the end of the year<\/a>. Daily updates on the trial are available online.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jillian Hughes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jillian Hughes is a second-year law student at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Before law school, Jillian attended the University of Delaware and received degrees in Neuroscience and English. In her free time, Jillian enjoys reading, creative writing, and playing with her dog, Lou.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The current antitrust lawsuit over Google\u2019s dominance in the digital marketing and advertising space could influence the way Big Tech antitrust litigation is handled in the future and change the current landscape of ad tech. The U.S. Department of Justice brought allegations against Google in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia, arguing that …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9306,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[570,386,159,568,569],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9305"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9305"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9305\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9313,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9305\/revisions\/9313"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9306"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}