On the first day of Google’s antitrust trial, the word “control” was front and center. The case is dissecting how Google seized, maintained and wielded its ad dominance — and the price it paid for it.
Of course, the defendant rejects all such charges, with Lee Anne Mulholland, vp, regulatory affairs at Google, imploring those paying attention to “let’s not break what’s working.”
In a Sep. 9 blog post, she wrote, “By picking winners and losers in a highly competitive industry, the DOJ [Justice Department] risks making it more expensive for small businesses to grow and for websites and apps to make money.”
The twists and turns of this saga all boil down to one defining moment:
Sixteen years ago, Google pulled off what was arguably the biggest power play in online advertising history: the acquisition of DoubleClick. At the time, it was hailed as a game-changer, a masterstroke positioning Google as the undisputed titan of ad tech. Fast forward to today, and this move has morphed into a hotbed of antitrust drama.
It’s a classic case of things unfolding slowly, only to snap into focus with a jolt. Curious how we got here? Dive in to uncover the details.
2008: DoubleClick acquisition
On April 13, Google announced its acquisition of DoubleClick for $3.1 billion. The deal is completed by the end of the year. Regulators caution that they will step in if Google uses its acquisition to tie together its offerings in ways that could be anti-competitive. And, in hindsight, it turns out the regulators were better at predicting the future than preventing it.
2009: M&A FTW
After the blockbuster DoubleClick deal, Google went on a shopping spree, snapping up ad tech companies like AdMob (2009), Invite Media (2010), and AdMeld (2011) faster than you can say “targeted ads.” These acquisitions, which did go through regulatory scrutiny, gave Google the tools to dominate every corner of digital advertising, from publishers to mobile ads.
2009-2011: Integration and Expansion
As Google scooped up these companies, it wove them into its own operations, turning them into the backbone of its ads business. Before long, Google wasn’t just a player in online ads; it was the main event — the go-to marketplace for selling ads and a top destination for advertisers looking to buy them.
2010: Regulators put Google on notice
Google’s tight hold on the ad market hasn’t slipped under the radar — especially given its habit of prioritizing its own products while sidelining competitors. With both its ad exchange and ad server leading the pack, Google often steered business to its own exchange. This behavior drew the attention of the European Commission, which launched an investigation into Google’s search and advertising practices around 2010 — a probe that only intensified over the years. It marked one of the earliest warnings about Google’s increasing market dominance.
2012: Growing regards
By 2012, regulators’ warnings had become a costly fact of life for many publishers. They had come to see that cashing in on the online ad boom meant playing by Google’s rules in its AdX marketplace. Opting out wasn’t viable — not if they wanted a slice of the biggest ad pie. This growing dependency on Google’s tech started to chafe, and publishers weren’t happy about being stuck on Google’s ad treadmill.
2014: Concerns turn to fears
Google is laying down the law — at least when it comes to media buyers. The tech giant has made it clear that it’s now nudging, or rather pushing, them to bundle two of its ad tech tools — a practice the industry affectionately refers to as “tying.” In other words, Google is insisting that if buyers want their ad impressions on DoubleClick Ad Exchange (AdX) to count toward their agreements, they’d better be purchasing them through DoubleClick Bid Manager (DBM).
For a moment, it looked like the ad industry had found a clever workaround to chip away at Google’s stranglehold on ad dollars: Header Bidding. This technique allowed publishers to auction off their ad space in multiple marketplaces simultaneously, boosting competition and cutting into Google’s control over ad auctions. Suddenly, Google wasn’t the only game in town, and its dominance took a hit — if only for a brief spell.
2016: a pivot to reality
Not to be outdone by header bidding, Google fired back with its own play: open bidding. This tool lets publishers use their own demand to bid for impressions in Google’s AdX marketplace, a shift from the previous setup that required using Google’s demand. At first glance, it appeared to be a more publisher-friendly alternative to header bidding, offering more control over auctions and potentially higher returns.
But, according to the DOJ, it was more of a Google-shaped smokescreen — an attempt to choke off competition from rival programmatic marketplaces by limiting their chances of winning impressions. Even after Google ditched its first-look advantage, it still ran a second-price auction in AdX, giving itself the ability to cherry-pick top impressions and outbid other exchanges.
Facebook made an unprecedented move by partnering with several ad tech companies to support header bidding. At the time, the consensus was that if this unlikely alliance succeeded, it could pose a serious threat to Google’s dominance in the online ad market.
A year after boldly announcing plans to take on Google for ad dollars and support header bidding, Facebook made a sharp U-turn, deciding instead to collaborate on Google’s counterattack. At the time, Facebook execs stayed tight-lipped about the sudden shift, but evidence from the ongoing antitrust case suggests that Google sweetened the deal to get Facebook on board. In return, the tech giant handed Facebook insider perks — like speed and intel boosts in programmatic auctions — advantages conspicuously not extended to its other partners.
2019: Auction chicanery
Google stunned the industry by doing the unthinkable: reworking its auction system to no longer give itself an edge in bid allocation. However, true to form, Google was tight-lipped about how this change might impact its own win rate and revenue, leaving everyone guessing about the potential fallout.
2020: Third-party cookie deprecation
Google announces the phaseout of third-party cookies by 2022, prompting a major shift in the digital advertising landscape, as replacement “discussions” occur amid the Privacy Sandbox forum.
2023: The authorities come knocking on Google’s door
The DOJ, alongside several state attorneys general, is pushing for a court order to break up Google’s online advertising empire. They’re calling for the divestiture of Google’s Ad Manager suite, which includes the DoubleClick ad server and AdX ad exchange, as well as any other structural remedies deemed necessary.
In addition, the DOJ is seeking monetary damages on behalf of the U.S. government in its role as an advertiser. The suit also demands a jury trial — albeit the latter request was denied, as the Sep. 9 case will continue as a bench trial with Judge Leonie M. Brinkema presiding.