The fate of Google’s search business now rests in the hands of Judge Amit Mehta following the conclusion of closing arguments in a landmark trial. The Department of Justice and plaintiff states have made their final arguments against Google’s alleged anticompetitive conduct in the general search and search advertising markets. The government claims that Google effectively shut out potential rivals through exclusive contracts with phone manufacturers and browser companies. If the judge agrees that Google engaged in anticompetitive behavior, he can consider the government’s arguments about the search advertising market as further evidence of wrongdoing.
DOJ attorney Kenneth Dintzer compared the current case against Google to the historical US v. Microsoft case, suggesting that similarities could indicate antitrust violations by Google. Google’s lead litigator, John Schmidtlein, defended the company by highlighting the superiority of Google’s product compared to Microsoft’s coercive practices. Judge Mehta acknowledged the significance of the case before concluding the court proceedings, emphasizing its importance for both Google and the general public.
The question of whether there are adequate substitutes for Google ads is crucial in determining whether Google holds a monopoly in the advertising market. Google argues that advertisers have plenty of alternatives, while the government disagrees. Judge Mehta expressed sympathy towards the government’s arguments, noting that alternatives like Amazon may not be inferior substitutes for Google. Differences between ad platforms like Google and social media platforms such as Facebook and TikTok were also considered in the trial.
The plaintiff states, led by Colorado and Nebraska attorneys general, allege that Google deliberately delayed implementing certain features for its SA360 search engine marketing tool that would benefit competitors like Microsoft’s Bing. The delayed feature for Bing ads could suggest anticompetitive behavior by Google, according to Judge Mehta. The issue of deleted or unretained documents by Google also loomed over the case, with the DOJ arguing that the destruction of potentially relevant evidence should be met with sanctions.
Google’s retention policy regarding chat messages, which allowed employees to decide when to preserve documents, raised concerns during the trial. The DOJ criticized Google for not taking responsibility for the unretained documents and called for sanctions to deter future document destruction. Judge Mehta expressed skepticism towards Google’s defense and indicated that the absence of key chats could influence his decision. The trial is awaiting a decision from Judge Mehta, but a second antitrust face-off over advertising technology is already on the horizon for Google and the DOJ later in the year.