{"id":34672,"date":"2024-10-01T18:05:26","date_gmt":"2024-10-01T18:05:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/radiantmedia.io\/?p=34672"},"modified":"2024-10-01T18:05:27","modified_gmt":"2024-10-01T18:05:27","slug":"what-comes-next-after-the-google-ad-tech-antitrust-case-is-over","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/ec2-34-197-49-85.compute-1.amazonaws.com\/?p=34672","title":{"rendered":"What Comes Next After The Google Ad Tech Antitrust Case Is Over"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Virginia Google ad tech antitrust trial has concluded, just three weeks after it started.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Arielle Garcia, you’re free to return home! I am grateful for your assistance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although it was anticipated that the trial would take four to six weeks, Judge Leonie Brinkema managed to keep things going quickly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After this, the court will take a nearly two-month hiatus before meeting again just before Thanksgiving to hear closing arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That concludes the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google concluded its case by entering two last witness depositions into the record on Friday, resting its defense. The first came from Brian Bumpers, a marketing analytics manager at the online clothing retailer Zulily, and the other from Ryan Pauley, president of sales and growth at Vox Media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

READ MORE: Google Ads Will Now Always Operate In A Trusted Environment<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One witness in rebuttal, Matthew Wheatland, the chief digital officer of DailyMail.com, was summoned back by the government. When the defense has finished its work, the plaintiff will call witnesses in rebuttal to challenge the evidence it has provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a summary of the opinions expressed by Pauley, Bumpers, and Wheatland on the Check My Ads website devoted to the case, click this link.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happens next?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After all parties have concluded their separate presentations, Judge Brinkema will now have to make a decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, a lot needs to happen before she can take power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the parties must turn in their updated findings of fact by Monday, November 4, at the latest. A findings of fact is a formal document that lists the pertinent details of a case. One is must be written by each side. In the weeks leading up to the trial’s commencement, proposed findings of fact were submitted by Google and the DOJ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For three weeks, Judge Brinkema will examine the materials and, if time permits, draft an early opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

READ MORE: Google Is Fighting To Keep Ad Tech Executives Off The Stand In Their Upcoming Antitrust Trial<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then it’s time for everyone to reassemble in the courthouse: Monday, November 25, at 10 a.m., is when closing arguments are supposed to take place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It appears that both parties will have more time than the 30 minutes each that they were given earlier this month to present their opening remarks. During closing arguments, the judge will also have the chance to ask questions.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After that’s done, it’s feasible that Judge Brinkema will issue a decision by the beginning of next year. Should she rule in the Department of Justice’s favor, the sentence will be determined at a later hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The extended distance<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if Google loses, as it undoubtedly will, and if the decision is not in its favor, it will also file an appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, following its defeat in the DOJ’s antitrust action earlier this year, Google intends to file an appeal. Judge Amit Mehta, the court in that case, concluded that Google had a monopoly in two markets: text-based search advertising and general web search.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

READ MORE: Yelp Sues Google After The Search Giant Loses Antitrust Case<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the search case, Judge Mehta has stated that he hopes to establish sanctions by August 2025. A second trial to determine remedies is scheduled for April.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google, on the other hand, is certain that it presented a strong defense in the ad tech case, citing, among other things, the DOJ’s gerrymandered definition of “open web display advertising” and its lack of obligation to interact with rivals.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google’s VP of regulatory relations, Lee-Anne Mulholland, summarized Google’s case in a blog post on Friday, stating that “header bidding is alive and well” and that “ad tech was, is, and remains a fiercely competitive business.” (Google may not be able to convince the DOJ of this.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The majority of publishers do not use Google Ad Manager, and many digital ads are actually not sold on ad exchanges,” Mulholland stated. Seventy percent of all digital ad spending is comprised of direct sales, in which buyers and sellers of ads do not use any exchange at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is, in Judge Brinkema’s opinion. And Google will stay under investigation for antitrust violations no matter how this case turns out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a different antitrust lawsuit, Google is facing similar charges over its misuse of market dominance in the digital advertising space, launched by a coalition of state attorneys general headed by Texas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial is slated to begin in the first part of 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Radiant TV, offering to\u00a0elevate your entertainment game!\u00a0Movies, TV series, exclusive interviews, music, and more\u2014download now on various devices, including iPhones, Androids, smart TVs, Apple TV, Fire Stick, and more.<\/strong><\/em>

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n