Growing Calls for Coordinated Antitrust Remedies Against Google’s Monopoly
In a bold move, the Movement for an Open Web (MOW) has ramped up its calls for the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) to synchronize its remedy efforts in response to Google’s monopolistic practices across its search and ad tech divisions. As the DOJ crafts proposals aimed at dismantling Google’s overwhelming market power, MOW advocates for a holistic approach to remedy formulation.
The Context of Antitrust Actions
The DOJ has identified Google’s search and ad tech operations as monopolies, leading to separate but concurrent cases to address these grievances. Currently, the remedies—under the supervision of distinct technical committees—are being developed. MOW argues this disjointedness could let crucial structural issues slip through the cracks, which are fundamental to obliterating Google’s monopolistic stronghold.
Understanding Technical Committees
In antitrust proceedings, technical committees consist of independent experts, appointed by the court or regulatory bodies like the DOJ, to ensure compliance with any settlement or remedy, particularly regarding technical aspects. MOW insists that a unified oversight is paramount given the intricate interdependence of Google’s business lines.
Need for a Unified Strategy
MOW underscores the necessity for a coordinated strategy, noting that fragmented remedies might overlook the underlying structural issues perpetuating Google’s monopoly. MOW is fully supportive of the DOJ’s existing proposals but insists on the need for additional safeguards. For instance, the group highlights Judge Leonie M. Brinkema’s ruling, which emphasized that Google’s management of AdWords demand significantly contributes to its monopoly in ad exchanges. To mitigate these power imbalances, MOW calls for measures to enhance publisher control, including:
- Greater transparency in inventory auctions.
- Clear pricing data.
- Restrictions on Google’s owned-and-operated properties to level the bidding field.
Insights from Experts
Tim Cowen, MOW’s chairman and an antitrust specialist at Preiskel & Co., points out the potential for Google to use technical strategies to maintain discrimination within ad tech, even if divested. He specifically refers to how Google leveraged its acquisition of DoubleClick to dominate the display ad market. “Google blocked access to the DoubleClick ID, creating an ecosystem where third parties became reliant on it,” he explained, shedding light on the nuanced tactics employed by the tech giant.
DOJ’s Proposed Remedies
The DOJ has outlined severe proposals, including:
- Selling the Chrome browser.
- Ending billions in default-search payments to device manufacturers.
- Licensing its search index and user data to rivals for a decade.
- Potentially divesting Android and enforcing choice screens to restore competition.
In response, Google has vehemently opposed the forced sale of Chrome, instead recommending more targeted contract reforms and broader data sharing practices.
A Phased Plan for Ad Tech
To specifically tackle Google’s ad tech monopoly, the DOJ has proposed a three-stage plan:
- Real-time data access for competitors via Prebid.
- Opening Google’s DFP auction logic to open-source frameworks.
- Divesting its ad server DFP and AdX under judicial oversight, with Google barred from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.
Following this potential divestiture, 50% of net revenues from AdX and DFP would be earmarked to assist publishers during their transition.
Concerns About Timeliness
At Advertising Week New York last year, industry leaders expressed doubt over whether the DOJ’s intended breakup of Google’s ad tech framework would significantly alter the playing field. Some observers assert that Google might already be well-positioned ahead of regulatory measures, making critics caution that remedies may come too late.
Many industry voices are divided over the efficacy of a breakup versus potential fines. Justin Choi, CEO of Nativo, articulated skepticism regarding the DOJ’s approach, declaring, “The DOJ is now fighting yesterday’s war. The damage is already done, and by the time remedies are in place, the context will have shifted.”
The Need for Robust Oversight
MOW’s Cowen emphasized the importance of comprehensive, conjoined oversight in the technical remedies. He noted that Google could easily circumvent effective market interventions without strong contractual obligations and vigilant monitoring.
The Road Ahead
Justice Amit Mehta, the presiding judge in the search antitrust case, is expected to issue a ruling on remedies in early August. Google retains the right to appeal the ruling for up to 30 days, potentially elongating the legal proceedings until 2027. Meanwhile, the remedies phase of the ad tech antitrust case is set to commence on September 22.
In conclusion, as the DOJ contemplates its next moves against one of the world’s largest tech monopolies, the call for synchronized and holistic remedies has never been more urgent. Only through strategic coordination can we hope to foster a more equitable digital marketplace.
