admin 
Google antitrust case continues with Google’s opening as a defense against the allegations of monopoly in advertising technology. The case started on Friday with a testimony saying that the online advertising industry is far more complex and requires greater competitive steps.
The picture painted by the federal government for the online advertising industry’s competitiveness is meager. Scott Sheffer, vice president for global partnerships at Google said, “The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years”. He was presented as the first witness in the Google antitrust case in federal court in Alexandria.
(Also read: Ford Cuts Back On Its Efforts For Diversity And Inclusion)
Why Google antitrust case was launched?
The launch of the case was based on the allegation that Google exploits the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads as online users see them. The Justice Department and a coalition of states contended that Google had been building this illegal advertising monopoly for years.
Google, on the other hand, defended its side by saying that the government only focuses on the ads that appear in rectangular shapes on the top and right-hand side of the webpage. These should be considered as mere narrow types of ads.
Google’s opening statement in defense
In its opening statement, Google’s lawyers emphasized that the Supreme Court is seeing one side of the picture and Sheffer described the problem as being more complicated. The rapidly emerging technology might need to be changed due to the increased risk or unintended consequences.
According to Google, the competition from social media and other platforms might be ignored if only these ads were taken into account. Defining the online advertising market so narrowly would be a risk as Amazon and other related streaming platforms are also now considered major competitors in this industry.
Reaching online consumers has become far more intricate than before as Gen-Z and Gen-Alpha’s needs must be defined separately. The detailing in ways that were acceptable a decade ago is now no longer considered pertinent.
Justice Department’s stance on the case
The lawyers of the Justice Department asked the witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting the case on Friday afternoon. The automated ad exchanges and conduction of actions should be detailed in ways that consumers must see and placed in front of them in the same way for the court to have a profound look at the matter.
The department was of the view that Google’s monopoly in advertising is finessed in subtle ways that provide benefit to Google only with a clear exclusion of its would-be competitors. The strategy facilitates an apparent prevention of the publishers from making money that they would have made otherwise from selling the same ads.
In the proceedings of the Google antitrust case, it was estimated that Google’s technology helps the firm make 36 cents per ad from which a particular purchase is made, which occurs in billions every single day. This was estimated after keeping in account all facets of an ad transaction.
Testimony from executives
Several executives at media companies like Gannett that own USA Today and News Corp., along with the Wall Street Journal and Fox News confirmed that Google dominates the online ad landscape. Its technology helps the publishers to sell and that is only strategized by Google in a way that they tie together the ads for the user to have easy access to them.
In Friday’s testimony, Sheffer added that Google’s tools have evolved over the years and provide malware for fraud protection to publishers and online advertisers.
In this case, the government stressed that since the complaint was filed last year to break the dominance as Google keeps the portion of selling off from the ads showing on the pages, the results are still not satisfactory.
The trial is still ongoing after it began on 9 September for the search engine’s illegal monopoly.
About The Author
