More than one antitrust regulator is circling around Google.
On Friday, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a statement of objection to Google’s ad tech practices, accusing Google of abusing its “dominant positions through the operation of both its publisher ad server and buying tools to restrict competition in the UK.”
The CMA’s complaint calls out three parts of Google’s ad tech stack where Google acts as an intermediary: its ad exchange (AdX), its ad server (formerly DoubleClick for Publishers) and Google Ads and DV360.
“Google disadvantages competitors and prevents them competing on a level playing field to provide publishers and advertisers with a better, more competitive service,” according to the CMA’s statement about its objection.
The CMA joins both the European Commission and the US Department of Justice on the list of antitrust regulators with Google in the antitrust crosshairs.
The DOJ’s antitrust trial against Google begins on Monday in Alexandria, Virginia, focusing on allegations that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the digital advertising marketplace. The CMA’s investigation highlighted similar themes.
Google unsurprisingly objects to the CMA’s objection.
“Google remains committed to creating value for our publisher and advertiser partners in this highly competitive sector,” Dan Taylor, Google’s VP of global ads, said in a statement shared with AdExchanger. “The core of this case rests on flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector. We disagree with the CMA’s view and we will respond accordingly.”
Google vs. competition watchdogs
But multiple regulators around the world take issue with the way Google appears to manipulate ad auctions to preference its own services.
The CMA started its investigation into Google’s allegedly anticompetitive practices in 2022. Its statement of objection on Friday to Google’s ad practices is the next milestone in the active investigation.
In its objection, the CMA claims Google allegedly “has abused its dominant positions through the operation of both its buying tools and publisher ad server to advantage AdX’s market position and protect [it] from competition from other exchanges.”
For example, the CMA points to Google allegedly giving its own buyers preferential access to AdX and manipulating bids to have higher value within AdX’s auction than when submitted to rival exchanges.
According to the CMA, this conduct has also obstructed other ad servers from competing with DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP). AdX bids first in online ad auctions run by DFP, which means some rivals don’t get the chance to submit a bid at all.
Next week’s DOJ trial will cover related territory.
The DOJ has accused Google of obstructing rival ad exchanges from getting the scale they’d need to compete for demand. Also according to the DOJ, Google has maintained a monopoly over the ad server market by using the product formerly known as DFP to advantage other parts of its ad tech stack, such as AdX.
The DOJ’s investigation, for example, surfaced evidence of efforts to neutralize header bidding, a mechanism to ensure buyers can compete for ad inventory simultaneously rather than sequentially.
As for the CMA’s findings, Google will have a chance to respond before the CMA finalizes its decision.