USA v. Google LLC Court Filing, retrieved on January 24, 2023, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is the table of links with all parts.
Case Number: 1:23-cv-00108
Plaintiff: USA
Defendant: Google LLC
Filing Date: January 24, 2023
Location: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - Alexandria Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
III. DISPLAY ADVERTISING TRANSACTIONS
A. How Ad Tech Tools Work B. How Ad Tech Intermediaries Get Paid
C. How Publishers and Advertisers Select Ad Tech Tools
D. Why Scale and the Resulting Network Effects are Necessary to Compete in Ad Tech
E. How Multi-Homing Enables Competition in the Ad Tech Stack
IV. GOOGLE’S SCHEME TO DOMINATE THE AD TECH STACK
A. Google Buys Control of the Key Tools that Link Publishers and Advertisers
- Google Thwarts Fair Competition by Making Its Google Ads’ Advertiser Demand Exclusive to Its Own Ad Exchange, AdX
- In Turn, Google Makes Its Ad Exchange’s Real-Time Bids Exclusive to Its Publisher Ad Server
- Finally, Google Uses Its Control of Publisher Inventory to Force More Valuable Transactions Through Its Ad Exchange
- Google’s Dominance Across the Ad Tech Stack Gives It the Unique Ability to Manipulate Auctions to Protect Its Position, Hinder Rivals, and Work Against Its Own Customers’ Interests
b) Google Manipulates Its Fees to Keep More High-Value Impressions Out of the Hands of Rivals
C. Google Buys and Kills a Burgeoning Competitor and Then Tightens the Screws
- Google Extinguishes AdMeld’s Potential Threat
- Google Doubles Down on Preventing Rival Publisher Ad Servers from Accessing AdX and Google Ads’ Demand
- Google Manipulates Google Ads’ Bidding Strategy to Block Publisher Partnerships with Rivals
D. Google Responds to the Threat of Header Bidding by Further Excluding Rivals and Reinforcing Its Dominance
- The Industry Attempts to Rebel Against Google’s Exclusionary Practices
- Google Blunts Header Bidding By “Drying Out” the Competition
f) Google Outright Blocks the Use of Standard Header Bidding on Accelerated Mobile Pages
VI. RELEVANT MARKETS
B. Product Markets
VII. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND COMMERCE
VIII. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED
- First Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Publisher Ad Server Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2
- Second Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Ad Exchange Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2
- Second Claim for Relief, in the Alternative: Attempted Monopolization of the Ad Exchange Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2
- Third Claim for Relief: Monopolization of the Advertiser Ad Network Market in Violation of Sherman Act § 2
- Fourth Claim for Relief: Unlawful Tying in Violation of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2
- Fifth Claim for Relief: Damages Incurred by the United States by Reason of Google’s Violations of the Antitrust Laws, 15 U.S.C. § 15a
About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case 1:23-cv-00108 retrieved on September 8, 2023, from justice.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.