The trial in the US Department of Justice case regarding our ad technology business concludes today. Testimony showed that the DOJ’s proposal to break up Google Ad Manager is unworkable and would create significant uncertainty and disruption for advertisers and publishers. In contrast, our proposal responded directly to the Court’s decision without making it more difficult and expensive for small businesses to reach consumers and grow.
Here’s a look at some testimonials and comments from a number of independent companies:
Tailored behavior changes are useful and address court outcomes.
Even witnesses called by the DOJ acknowledged that Google’s proposal would address the court’s concerns:
- James Avery, CEO of rival ad server Kevel, testified that a direct, non-preferential connection to Google’s exchange would “solve [the] concerns in this matter.”
- DOJ Chief Economist Professor Robin Lee conceded that divestment would not be necessary if behavioral remedies were well designed and enforced.
The DOJ’s proposal won’t work.
The DoJ’s proposal to force a divestment of Google Ad Manager would require a massive technical undertaking that a number of experts testified simply wouldn’t work.
- Google expert Professor Jason Nieh called a proposed breach a “very complicated software engineering undertaking with… no guarantee of success.”
- Ad Manager’s director of engineering, Glenn Bernston, added that “It makes no sense. You can build it, but it won’t work.”
The DOJ’s proposal will cause uncertainty and disruption for publishers and advertisers, which will disproportionately affect American businesses.
Litigation and independent party testimony confirmed that the DOJ’s proposal would significantly harm small businesses that use our ad technology tools to reach customers and monetize their content.
- Jeff Taxdahl, founder of small business owner Thread Logic, highlighted the problems with divestment: “If Google’s ad technology tools are broken, it’s not clear what’s going to take its place. A fragmented system would lack Google’s reach and efficiency, so we’d have to spend far more time managing multiple ad and analytics platforms. Our ads would be cheaper for one-two more expensive. America’s businesses.”
- wikiHow’s chief executive, Elizabeth Douglas, told the Court: “I’m here today because I’m concerned about my business… we require the revenue we get from our advertising to innovate and run our business, and it scares me to think that that’s potentially going to change.” She also shared that “there’s just no SSP that I trust as much as Google, especially with the consistency of Google paying us every month and supporting us with our issues.”
- Pinterest CEO Bill Ready explained why breaking Google won’t fix the ad market: “a new owner with different incentives — especially a dominant one on the buy side or an AI platform that optimizes for unknown goals — could recreate the same dynamic in a new form. And it could take years to hold that successor accountable.”
We’ve said from the beginning that the DOJ’s case ignores enormous competition and dynamics in the ad tech market. Ravi Goel, CEO of PubMatic, echoed this during the lawsuit, saying that ad technology is “evolving at a very fast pace … a relentless pace of change.” We will continue to advocate for a resolution that addresses the Court’s concerns without stifling the growth of American businesses that choose to use our tools to grow.