Daily TribuneGoogle’s expert witness in an antitrust trial argues that regulators have underestimated the competitive landscape in online advertising, painting a different picture of the industry’s dynamics.
Share
A large Google logo is seen at Google's Bay View campus in Mountain View, California
Josh Edelson / AFP
Share
In a high-profile antitrust trial, Google’s defense team challenged the government's claim that the tech giant holds an illegal monopoly over online advertising technology. Mark Israel, an economist hired by Google, testified that federal regulators are too focused on a narrow segment of the advertising market, missing key shifts in the broader industry. His statements came as the trial entered its third week in Alexandria, Virginia, with U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema presiding.
Israel, addressing the claims raised by the government, emphasized that the market defined in the lawsuit—“open web display advertising”—is too restrictive and doesn’t account for significant competitors like social media platforms Facebook and TikTok, or online retailers such as Amazon.
According to Matthew Barakat, in a report for AP, Israel stated that when all forms of online display advertising are taken into consideration, Google’s share in the U.S. market is just 10%, a notable drop from 15% a decade ago. He also highlighted how ad spending has dramatically shifted away from desktop and laptop screens to mobile apps, further diluting Google's dominance in the space the government is focused on.
In his testimony, Israel argued that advertisers have followed consumer behavior, moving their budgets to mobile devices and other emerging platforms, which has reduced Google’s influence over the digital ad ecosystem. As a result, he pointed out that Google's share of desktop display advertising dropped from 71% in 2013 to just 17% by 2022. The government’s claims, he said, “miss where the competition is today,” focusing too much on outdated market conditions.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains that Google has used its control over several layers of the online advertising process to stifle competition, keeping 36 cents for every dollar spent on advertising through its systems. The government argues that this dominance has inflated costs for advertisers and reduced options for publishers.
However, Israel countered this assertion, citing data that Google’s revenue share has dropped to around 31% in recent years, with its competitors often charging higher rates. He stressed that Google’s investments in technology allow it to offer better value to advertisers and publishers, which he believes justifies its current position in the market.
As the trial nears its conclusion, the government is set to present a rebuttal case before closing arguments are submitted later this year. Judge Brinkema is expected to make a ruling by the end of 2024, in what could become a landmark decision in the regulation of the digital advertising industry.
