Google (file here) and the Department of Justice (file here) have submitted their final legal arguments in what is very likely the most consequential antitrust case ever in adtech. Together, these two documents—at over 1,000 pages—sum up the evidence presented during the contentious Google vs. DOJ September trial.
The core question is really whether Google has built an illegal monopoly in adtech. Many say “yes,” of course, as the DOJ argues that Google’s control over the adtech market stifles competition. Google, however, contends that the industry remains very competitive, with ongoing innovation from major players like Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and even retailers. There aren’t really any surprises, especially if you’ve been following the trial (see our coverage here).
Closing arguments are scheduled for November 25, and a final ruling is expected early next year.
Why This Matters:
So, what does this all mean? Here’s a breakdown of each side’s core arguments from the latest filings. Summing this up was kind of difficult but hopefully this hits the mark.
Google’s Position: Google claims it competes in a very vibrant and competitive adtech market alongside top players like Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft. According to Google, its tech innovations and investments have benefited everyone — publishers, advertisers, and consumers — by keeping costs stable and improving ad quality. Google also argues that the DOJ’s market definitions, which divide the adtech ecosystem into separate categories (e.g., ad servers, exchanges), are fundamentally flawed. Instead, Google advocates for a broader, two-sided market definition that better represents how adtech tools serve both publishers and advertisers.
DOJ’s Position: The DOJ, in contrast, describes Google as wielding monopolistic control over three distinct segments of the adtech market: publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser ad networks. The DOJ also contends Google uses its control to restrict competitors and compel publishers and advertisers to overly rely on its tools. The DOJ highlights practices like Google’s integration of AdX and DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), which (allegedly) lock customers into Google’s ecosystem. According to the DOJ, these tactics have limited competition and driven up ad prices for smaller advertisers and publishers.
We also tried to summarize the main arguments across the two documents in this table:
Does that make sense? Hoping it’s helpful.
Experts React:
Here are some expert perspectives on each filing, depending on your stance:
Pro-Google: Vidushi Dyall, Director of Legal Analysis at the Chamber of Progress:
Pro-DOJ: Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads:
Our Take:
Get your antitrust kicks in now, DOJ! The timing of this ruling, expected in early 2025, may very well intersect with Donald Trump’s potential return to office. Antitrust — and the DOJ’s appetite for it — will likely look very different in a second Trump administration.
