Part 40 - Third Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Advertiser Ad Network Market

VIII. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

Third Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Advertiser Ad Network Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2

330. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 309 above.

331. Advertiser ad networks for open web display advertising in the United States or, in the alternative, worldwide is a relevant antitrust market, and Google has monopoly power in that market.

332. Google has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the advertiser ad network market through an exclusionary course of conduct and the anticompetitive acts described herein. While each of Google’s actions collectively increased, maintained, or protected its advertiser ad network monopoly and/or market position in adjacent markets, its veiled introduction of socalled Unified Pricing Rules that took away publishers’ power to transact with rival advertiser ad networks at certain prices played a particularly important role in unlawfully establishing or maintaining an advertiser ad network monopoly.

333. Google’s conduct has drastically altered the supply paths through which available display advertising inventory is sold, reducing payouts to publishers, burdening advertisers and publishers with lower-quality matches of advertisements to inventory, and inhibiting choice and innovation across the ad tech stack.

334. Google’s anticompetitive acts have had harmful effects on competition and consumers.

335. Google’s exclusionary conduct lacks a procompetitive justification that offsets the harm caused by Google’s anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.