A federal judge has dismissed a key argument presented by Alphabet Inc. in a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit accusing Google of monopolizing the advertising technology market. During closing arguments, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected Google’s reliance on a 2018 Supreme Court antitrust ruling involving American Express Co. (Amex).  

In the trial’s final day in Alexandria, Virginia, Judge Brinkema clarified her stance, stating that the Amex decision does not align with the current case. "We’re dealing with a completely different setup," she noted, interrupting Google’s legal team as they attempted to draw parallels between the cases.  

This lawsuit is one of several antitrust challenges facing Google. In a separate case, the DOJ seeks to force Alphabet to divest its Chrome browser after a ruling found the company illegally monopolized online search.  

In the current case, filed in 2023, the DOJ and several states allege that Google unlawfully monopolized three distinct advertising technology markets: ad servers used by websites (sell-side tools), ad exchanges, and ad networks used by advertisers (buy-side tools). Google counters this claim by arguing that these markets are interconnected and should be viewed as a single market where advertisers and publishers interact.  

Google’s legal team cited the Amex case, which determined that courts should evaluate how products impact different customer groups. Google argues its practices, which the DOJ claims harmed website publishers, were designed to benefit advertisers. Google’s lawyer, Karen Dunn, likened its ad tech tools to credit cards, explaining that they facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. "You can’t look at one side in isolation," Dunn stated.  

However, Judge Brinkema expressed skepticism about applying the Amex ruling to Google’s case. She indicated concerns about the relevance of the credit card market precedent to the advertising technology industry.  

The DOJ contends that the Amex decision is limited to credit card platforms and does not apply broadly to other markets serving two customer groups. DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum emphasized this point, stating, “Google is once, twice, three times a monopolist. The company’s internal documents make clear it’s three markets and not one.”  

Meanwhile, Dunn argued that U.S. antitrust laws allow Google to decide whether its products work with competitors' tools. She claimed that requiring Google to ensure compatibility with rival technologies could stifle innovation.  

Justin Teresi, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence who specializes in antitrust litigation, believes Brinkema may rule in favor of the government on specific claims, particularly those involving publisher ad servers and tying practices.  

Judge Brinkema, who previously stated she plans to deliver a decision by the end of the year, provided no updates on the timeline for her ruling.  

Paraphrasing text from "Bloomberg" all rights reserved by the original author.