When DOJ pushes for ADX split, Google antitrust trial begins

Google is fighting to prevent the ad business from breaking up as a major US antitrust trial is underway in Alexandria, Virginia. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and several states have argued that the tech giants are pushing for selling ADX, an ad exchange, and are abusing the control of online advertising.

This famous case is part of the widespread US crackdown on large-scale technology. A similar legal battle is underway against Meta, Amazon and Apple, and Google’s trials make it a critical test of how far the courts will go to reconstruct the situation with online advertising.

DOJ pushes Google to sell ADX in court

DOJ claims that Google will exploit the website through the ADX platform by charging a 20% fee for all advertising sales. Critics argue that the fee is excessive, giving it an unfair advantage over its competitors.

The agency is pushing the tech giant to sell ADX and make the ad auction system transparent. As Google manages almost all advertising auctions, DOJ officials believe this will allow other companies to compete fairly.

Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presides the trial, has already said that Google holds an illegal monopoly in online advertising. She decides the necessary relief, but the DOJ says that if the proposed reforms don’t boost competition within four years, the company should also sell publisher ad servers.

This exam features testimonials from the media industry figures affected by Google’s advantage. Representatives from Dailymail.com, Advance Local, and former News Corp leaders explain how Google forced them to stay within the AD system. Witnesses say that Google’s auction process gave it the first and last chance to bid on its own advertisers, leaving less revenue than website owners have earned in the fair market.

It also explains how Google’s policies have prevented publishers from cutting costs and prevented them from competing with other ad technology companies. These accounts aim to show the real impact of Google’s controls and support the DOJ’s argument that selling ADX and implementing these reforms will encourage fairer competition in online advertising.

Google suggests policy changes to avoid disbanding

In response, Google told the court it didn’t want to be forced to sell ADX, and told the court should take a careful approach before making any major decisions. The company mentioned a recent incident in Washington, DC. There, another judge considered a similar antitrust case regarding Google’s search and rejected most of the requests from the DOJ.

Google says ADX sales can cause long-term issues and confusion for advertisers who pay to display their ads. What’s more, they say it’s better for everyone when rules and policies change than the whole business is disbanded.

The court argues that changing the rules will help publishers and advertisers work easier in the market and allow other companies to compete fairly. However, Google’s main goal is to maintain its current system and avoid disruption for businesses that rely on advertising systems.

The Justice Department argues that these changes are insufficient as Google still controls key parts of the advertising system. During the trial, the courts can also view internal Google investigations and documents from past European investigations into ADX sales.

These documents can show Google’s thoughts on selling ADX, what it means, and why the company chose not to sell it. Viewing these documents in court can make things difficult for Google, as it could prove that Google was able to sell ADX but decided to keep it.

If the court is in charge of DOJ, this could be the biggest change in Google’s business since the company began. However, if the court asks the company to change its policy, many people worried about big technology may think they have missed another opportunity to reduce the power of very large companies. In any case, the results show how far the courts go to make online advertising fair.