USA v. Google LLC Court Filing, retrieved on January 24, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is the table of links with all parts. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 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 I. INTRODUCTION II. NATURE OF THIS ACTION 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 B. Google Uses Its Acquisitions and Position Across the Ad Tech Stack to Lock Out Rivals and Control Each Key Ad Tech Tool 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 a) Google Works Against the Interests of Its Google Ads’ Customers By Submitting Two Bids Into AdX Auctions 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 a. Google Develops So-Called Open Bidding, Its Own Google Friendly Version of Header Bidding To Preserve Its Control Over the Sale of Publisher Inventory b) Google Further Stunts Header Bidding by Working to Bring Facebook and Amazon into Its Open Bidding Fold. c) Google Manipulates Its Publisher Fees Using Dynamic Revenue Sharing in Order to Route More Transactions Through Its Ad Exchange and Deny Scale to Rival Ad Exchanges Using Header Bidding d) Google Launches Project Poirot to Manipulate Its Advertisers’ Spend to “Dry Out” and Deny Scale to Rival Ad Exchanges That Use Header Bidding e) Google Imposes So-Called Unified Pricing Rules to Deprive Publishers of Control and Force More Transactions Through Google’s Ad Exchange f) Google Outright Blocks the Use of Standard Header Bidding on Accelerated Mobile Pages g) Google Replaces Its Last Look Preference from Dynamic Allocation with an Algorithmic Advantage and Degrades Data Available to Publishers V. ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS VI. RELEVANT MARKETS A. Geographic Markets B. Product Markets Publisher Ad Servers Ad Exchanges Advertiser Ad Networks 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 IX. REQUEST FOR RELIEF X. DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 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 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. justice.gov

US v. Google: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and Advertising

Binance's CEA Violations - COUNT III: Failure to Register as a Futures Commission Merchant

Too Long; Didn't Read

Boost your HackerNoon story @ $159.99! 🚀

US v. Google - a Breakdown of the Landmark Monopoly Case

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

The 💩 Poop Emoji's 10th Anniversary

107 Stories To Learn About Search Engine

10 Tools That Will Boost Your #Productivity

10 Google Artificial Intelligence Tools Available to Everyone

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

The 💩 Poop Emoji's 10th Anniversary

107 Stories To Learn About Search Engine

10 Tools That Will Boost Your #Productivity

10 Google Artificial Intelligence Tools Available to Everyone

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps