The key to Google’s defense is that, although it accounts for nearly 30 per cent of global digital advertising spending, it still does not control enough of the industry to charge customers high fees and exclude competitors from the market.
the authors of this document, including a lawyer and an economist employed by Google, believe that Google has no incentive to pressure advertisers on advertising prices, nor to ask publishers to pay more. Google’s system won’t give the company an advantage over its own services, and it’s competing with many other companies.
this paper was submitted to the Australian Competition and Consumer Council as part of a study on the online advertising market. In many ways, this study is different from the findings of the U.S. Department of justice. This is partly because the complexity of antitrust law varies from country to country. However, US investigators are also said to be paying attention to Google’s advertising technology.
U.S. Department of justice prosecutors are investigating a case, and it is expected that U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr will soon decide whether to sue Google. Prosecutors have been investigating Google for nearly a year and have talked to Google’s competitors in the media, technology and advertising fields. The lawsuit may also include charges related to Google’s other businesses, such as the search engine. Barr was a corporate lawyer who focused on antitrust issues, so he was personally interested in the investigation.
officials in the trump administration have been targeting Google and other large technology companies, such as accusing Google’s YouTube of suppressing conservative voices. Left wing politicians have said these tech companies represent runaway corporate capitalism.
in addition to the U.S. Department of Justice investigation, a bipartisan panel of U.S. prosecutors is also investigating Google. Last year, the state of Texas, which led the group, sent a question to Google seeking information about Google’s advertising technology business.
these questions involve a complex and lucrative system. This system is basically invisible to users, and its function is to connect the seller of advertising space with the advertiser who needs to put in advertisement. For example, when readers click on an article on a news website, many related products can sell the advertising space next to the article to the highest bidder, such as a clothing brand or car brand.
the products mastered by Google control every link in the whole process, including a variety of software for advertisers and publishers and for advertising space auction. Since publishers sometimes use multiple digital advertising agencies to publish advertising space, these companies need to compete with each other to see who can attract advertisers to offer the highest price.
Google’s critics believe that Google has gained a certain degree of dominance in the advertising technology market, resulting in the loss of the possibility of fair competition. They believe that Google has been able to position itself as the final bidder in the competition with other advertising technology providers, thus giving its services an unfair advantage. In addition, Google is now able to compete with other platforms using massive amounts of data, potentially charging exorbitant prices.
in a submission to Australia, Daniel Bitton, partner at axinn, veltrop & amp; harkrider, and Stephen Lewis, an economic consultant, refuted many of these criticisms. For years, the law firm has appeared as Google’s agent in antitrust cases.
the two people believe that Google competes with many companies in the advertising space market, including big companies such as Amazon and less well-known companies such as trade desk. (on the charts produced by the two Google consultants, only one company has the ability to service every step of the ad buying process. This company is at & amp; T.)
biton and Lewis point out that Google’s system can work with products from other companies. Google’s products make the advertising buying process more efficient and provide a strong choice for both buyers and sellers. They deny that Google’s software gives it an undue advantage over competitors in bidding for advertising space. In addition, Google has made a series of adjustments in recent years. In the current advertising auction, it is impossible to guarantee that Google’s products will enter the final bidding phase.
the U.S. Department of justice case may also focus on Google’s advertising technology business, not just the issues involved in the Australian filing. For example, does Google charge publishers unfair fees to help them sell advertising space.
Biden and Lewis wrote: “antitrust laws are designed to protect competition, not to protect a single competitor. In a dynamic market such as advertising technology, trying to protect a competitor may pose a huge risk of stifling competition and innovation, rather than promoting or protecting competition and innovation. ”
they also put forward a more general argument: Google has no incentive to harm publishers because content produced by third parties can optimize the quality of search results on Google’s search engine.
Google spokesperson Julie tarallo McAlister said in a statement that fierce competition among advertising technology companies has resulted in lower prices, which is also a core consideration of U.S. Antitrust Law.
she said: “digital advertising is an increasingly competitive industry. We compete with hundreds of companies, including household names like adobe, Amazon, at & amp; t, Comcast, Facebook and Oracle. Competition brings more choices, helps to reduce the price of Internet advertising, reduce the cost of businesses and consumers. ”
in recent months, including in two official blogs in June, Google has also responded to other criticisms of its advertising business from regulators and judicial officials around the world.
Biden and Lewis wrote that they were responding to two lawyers in Brussels, Damien geradin and Dimitrios katsifis, who represented Murdoch’s News Corp. and other publishers. The two lawyers have written several papers over the past two years outlining the allegation that Google has established a monopoly in advertising technology.
in June this year, Geraldine and cassiifes pointed out that there were “misleading arguments, inaccurate facts and obvious omissions” in the documents submitted by Google in Australia, which made us more convinced of the persuasiveness of our arguments. “.
apart from Australia, Google’s advertising business is also closely watched in many other countries around the world. This month, the UK competition and market authority released its own digital advertising market research report. In the past few years, regulators in Canada and the Netherlands have also been investigating various areas of the advertising industry. In 2019, European antitrust regulators fined Google $1.69 billion for improperly exploiting its dominance in search advertising. This is not the same type of display advertising as discussed in the Australian document.
Google is fighting back in an increasingly public way. Last month, Google defended charges of abusing its position in the advertising industry in two official blogs. In one of the blogs, a Google executive pointed out that most of the revenue publishers make from selling ads through Google’s products is in their own hands. Another blog explains how Google’s system works and points out that most of the revenue generated by publishers selling ads is spent on system maintenance and operational optimization.
in June, netchoice, an industry association with Google as a member, also published a related paper entitled “is Google search an advertising giant? Please think again. The article believes that Google’s behavior is not like a monopoly, because users of Google’s advertising technology products can also use the services of competitors. “In terms of numbers, this means that Google’s tools help publishers get demand from more than 700 advertising platforms, giving advertisers access to more than 80 distribution platforms.”