Part 41 - Fourth Claim for Relief: Unlawful Tying in Violation of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2

VIII. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

Fourth Claim for Relief: Unlawful Tying in Violation of Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2

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

337. Google’s AdX and DFP are separate and distinct products. They are sold in different markets; their functions are different; there is separate demand for them; and they have been treated by Google and by other industry participants as separate products.

338. Google’s AdX has sufficient market power in the market for ad exchanges for open web display advertising in the United States to coerce publishers to license DFP, thus restraining competition in the market for publisher ad servers for open web display advertising in the United States. AdX was viewed as a “must-have” product in part because of its exclusive access to Google Ads’ demand. Google compels publishers to use DFP to access real-time competition between AdX and other demand sources. The only viable economic option for many publishers is to use DFP because choosing a rival platform would require the publisher to lose access to economically essential, real-time, competitive advertiser demand.

339. Google’s tying arrangement affects a substantial volume of commerce in the publisher ad server market and has substantially foreclosed competition in the publisher ad server market. Google’s tying arrangement has excluded competition in the publisher ad server market. Google’s tying arrangement has further caused competing ad servers substantial damages as a direct and proximate cause of this unlawful conduct because Google has foreclosed other ad servers from competing for potential publishers and has deprived ad servers of other business for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of DFP.