"From Google's perspective, the DOJ's argument "is all about trust," said Karen Dunne, Google's lawyer. The DOJ's proposal, she argued, is filled with references to Google's "impulses" and to how "creative minds" at Google might find new ways to maintain monopoly control. In essence, she said, the DOJ's message is simply that Google can't be trusted."
"Neither set of closing arguments contained any major surprises. The DOJ and Google outlined positions they'd already firmly established during the remedy trial phase in September. The DOJ maintains that a structural remedy is required, rather than just behavioral requirements that would impose policy changes but leave Google potential leeway to undermine the ruling's impact."
"But has the DOJ proven that a full divestiture of AdX, Google's ad exchange, is necessary to return fair competition to the sell-side of the ad tech market? According to Google, no, obviously. Dunne contended that the DOJ's ambitious structural proposal falls short. During her hour and a half of arguments and rebuttals, she pointed repeatedly - roughly 20 times or more - to the Google Search antitrust trial, which publishers and ad tech execs criticized for its light behavioral remedy approach."
Closing arguments concluded in the publisher-focused DOJ v. Google sell-side ad tech antitrust matter, and Judge Leonie Brinkema will decide whether structural relief is necessary. The DOJ argues that only a structural remedy, potentially including divestiture of Google's AdX ad exchange, can restore fair competition and prevent Google from undermining remedies. Google argues that the DOJ's case centers on mistrust and that behavioral remedies would suffice, noting prior remedies in the Google Search context. Both sides reiterated established positions from the remedy trial, leaving the court to weigh competing proposals and evidence.
Read at AdExchanger
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]