In a trial centered on its deceptive practices in digital advertising, Google is facing another attempt to destroy its internet empire after fending off the U.S. Justice Department’s attack on its unlawful monopoly in online search.
Monday’s trial in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, will focus on the damaging actions that caused U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to declare portions of Google’s digital advertising technology to be an unlawful monopoly.
According to the judge, Google has been acting in a way that hurts online publishers who rely on the system for income by stifling competition.
Brinkema will decide on how to restore fair market conditions after Google and the Justice Department spend the next two weeks in court presenting evidence in a “remedy” trial.
The judge has not specified a timeline for that judgment, but it is unlikely to be made before the end of this year because more courtroom arguments and legal documents are anticipated to be submitted into November before Brinkema submits the case.
Google said it would appeal the previous ruling that branded the ad network as a monopoly, regardless of the judge’s conclusion. Until the remedy is decided, appeals cannot be filed.
The intricate network that Google has spent the last 17 years creating to support its dominant digital advertising business is in jeopardy as a result of the 2023 lawsuit, which was brought during President Joe Biden’s administration.
In addition to generating the majority of the $305 billion in revenue that Google’s services division brings to its parent company, Alphabet Inc., digital advertising sales are crucial to the survival of thousands of websites.
Brinkema would force Google to sell some of its ad technology if the Justice Department had its way. The company’s attorneys cautioned that this approach would “invite disruption and damage” to customers and the internet economy.
A breakup, according to the Justice Department, would be the fastest and most efficient method to challenge a monopoly that has been impeding competition and innovation for many years.
Google feels that it has already addressed the problems raised by Brinkema in her monopolistic ruling by making sufficient adjustments to its “Ad Manager” system, such as offering additional options and pricing alternatives.
Google recently faced a similar legal battle over its advertising technology after a federal judge declared its dominating search engine to be an illegal monopoly and launched remedy hearings earlier this year to discuss how to curb the wrongdoing.
In that case, the Justice Department also suggested a harsh crackdown that would have forced Google to sell its well-known Chrome browser.
However, earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that a less drastic change was necessary in light of the search market being transformed by artificial intelligence technology.
The finding was largely viewed as a slap on the wrist, even if Google didn’t agree with every component of Mehta’s decision.
This perception has contributed to the recent spike in Alphabet’s stock price.
Alphabet became just the fourth publicly traded corporation to surpass a market value of $3 trillion, thanks to the 20% increase after Mehta’s ruling.
This represents a rise of more than $1 trillion since Brinkema labeled Google’s ad system a monopoly in April.
Brinkema asked Google and the Justice Department to address Mehta’s decision during the trial, suggesting that the outcome of the search monopoly case could influence the advertising technology proceedings.
Google’s attorneys have already claimed in court documents, like they did in the search case, that the adoption of AI technology by competitors of the ad network, such as Meta Platforms, is changing the market and negating the need for the Justice Department’s “radical” ideas.
Before the trial, Google’s attorneys contended that the Justice Department is “fighting for a remedy that would vanquish a past that technological and market transformations have overtaken in the way digital ads are consumed.”
