Google wound down its defense in the US Department of Justice\u2019s ad tech monopoly trial this week, following a week of testimony from witnesses that experts said seemed to lack credibility.
The tech giant started its defense by showing a widely mocked chart that Google executive Scott Sheffer called a \u201cspaghetti football,\u201d a diagram purportedly demonstrating a fluid industry thriving due to Google\u2019s ad tech platform. However, this was seen by many, including Open Markets Institute policy analyst Karina Montoya, as more confusing than clarifying, with some even suggesting that it debunked Google\u2019s case reported Montoya<\/a>.
\u201cThe effect of this image might have backfired as it also made it evident that Google is ubiquitous in digital advertising,\u201d Montoya reported. During DOJ\u2019s cross-examination, the spaghetti football was untangled to show only the ad tech products used specifically by publishers and advertisers on the open web.
One witness, Marco Hardie, Google\u2019s current head of industry, was even removed from the stand, his testimony deemed \u201ctainted\u201d and irrelevant by US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, Montoya noted. But perhaps the most heated exchange came during the DOJ\u2019s cross-examination of Mark Israel, the key expert who Google relies on to challenge the DOJ\u2019s market definition.
Google\u2019s case hinges on Brinkema agreeing that the DOJ\u2019s market definition is too narrow<\/a>, focusing heavily on display ads on the open web instead of a broader market that includes display ads in apps or on social media. However, after DOJ lawyer Aaron Teitelbaum\u2019s aggressive cross-examination, experts monitoring the trial suggested that Judge Brinkema might question Israel\u2019s credibility. According to Big Tech on Trial, which posted<\/a> the exchange on X (formerly Twitter), Teitelbaum\u2019s line of questioning came across as a \u201cstriking and effective impeachment of Mark Israel\u2019s credibility as a witness.\u201d
During his testimony, Israel downplayed Google\u2019s dominance by emphasizing intense competition from other Big Tech companies like Amazon, Meta, and TikTok, Montoya noted. On cross-examination, Teitelbaum characterized Israel as a \u201cserial \u2018expert\u2019 for companies facing antitrust challenges,\u201d who consistently finds market definition explanations favorable to the companies he represents. Quotes from past cases, read by Teitelbaum, depicted Israel\u2019s expert testimony as \u201cnot credible\u201d and based on \u201cfaulty assumptions,\u201d according to USvGoogleAds, a site run by the digital advertising watchdog Check My Ads with ad industry partners.
Further damaging was Teitelbaum questioning Israel on the fact that \u201c80 percent of his income comes from doing this sort of expert testimony,\u201d suggesting a financial dependency on being paid by companies facing similar antitrust challenges. Lee Hepner, an antitrust lawyer with the American Economic Liberties Project, posted<\/a> on X that the DOJ\u2019s antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter has expressed concern about serial experts who allegedly sow distrust in the court system.
\u201cLet me say this clearly\u2014this will not end well,\u201d Kanter remarked<\/a> at a competition law conference this month. \u201cAlready we see a seeping distrust of expertise by the courts and by law enforcers.\u201d
In its defense, Google also called upon Courtney Caldwell, the CEO of a small business that received a grant from Google, to testify that a DOJ win could harm small businesses. Big Tech on Trial reported<\/a> this testimony as resembling a \u201cGoogle ad,\u201d and suggested that Google mainly relied on \u201cthe best witnesses their money can buy,\u201d which failed to significantly bolster their case.
Google\u2019s defense strategy appears to be a \u201clight touch,\u201d choosing not to refute every DOJ argument but rather projecting an image of Google\u2019s ad tech stack as growing naturally and organically. The DOJ is expected to call witnesses for rebuttal next, and closing arguments are set to be heard in December. For further details, please refer to the full article on Ars Technica<\/a>.