Google won’t have to break up its ad adtech empire, but there’s a long list of changes it will have to make after being found liable for illegally monopolizing certain online ad markets.
The federal judge overseeing Google’s landmark adtech antitrust trial has now unsealed her ruling outlining the behavioral remedies the ad giant will face.
The key takeaway is that Google — which operates an ad server that publishers use to manage and sell ads, the buying tools that help marketers buy ads, and an exchange that connects the two — won’t be able to give its own services preferential treatment in auctions for ads that appear on websites across the open internet. The remedies will apply globally for six years.
“We’re very pleased the court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,” a Google spokesperson said earlier this month when the judge presiding over the case announced she wouldn’t order a breakup of the company
Here’s a plain-English translation of the key remedies and what they mean for the various players in the online ad market.
Google can’t enforce policies or contract terms tying DFP to AdX, or reimplement ‘First Look’ and ‘Last Look.’
Translation: Google can’t force publishers using its DFP ad server to also use its AdX exchange, or use auction mechanisms that give AdX an advantage over rivals.
First Look gave AdX the first chance to bid on an ad impression, while Last Look let it see what rival exchanges were bidding before deciding to place its own bid.
Patrick Briggs, CEO of digital ad agency HubShout, said removing advantages such as Last Look could make ad auctions more trustworthy, potentially improving the value of the broader display ad market.
AdX and DFP must integrate with Prebid.
Translation: Google’s exchange and publisher ad server must work with Prebid, the widely used open-source technology that lets publishers invite multiple ad exchanges to bid for their ad space using a technique called header bidding. Google was a longtime holdout.
Rajeev Goel, CEO of adtech company PubMatic, said the remedy should help rival exchanges compete more fairly with AdX. But if Google’s integration works differently from Prebid’s existing connections with other exchanges, it could create friction.
“It’s kind of like when all of your devices take USB and then somebody comes out with a new device and a different type of charger,” Goel said. “You’re like, ‘Oh man, now I’ve got to put all these new types of chargers in all the rooms in my house, in my office, and in my car,’ and it creates a lot of wasted effort.”
Goel testified as a witness for the Department of Justice in the trial.
AdX must make real-time bids available to rival publisher ad servers.
Translation: Publishers should be able to receive bids from advertisers through AdX without also having to use Google’s DFP ad server.
Goel said this should allow publishers to judge whether DFP is “the best possible ad server for me on the merits of the ad server, not the merits of the ad server plus the AdX monetization.”
Wyatt Fore, a partner at the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, said interoperability requirements have a long history in antitrust enforcement, pointing to a 1968 FCC ruling that required AT&T to allow rival devices to connect to its telephone network.
Google must provide publishers with historical and configuration data from DFP, as well as ongoing AdX bid data.
Translation: Publishers need to be able to take their data with them if they switch to a rival ad server.
“It reduces switching costs,” said Nick Stoltz, chief strategy officer of the media-measurement company Measured.
Rob Retzlaff, executive director of the Connected Commerce Council, said smaller publishers may welcome more competition but will also want to ensure changes don’t disrupt the tools they rely on for revenue. Google is a corporate partner of the small-business advocacy group.
AdX and DFP can’t discriminate in favor of Google’s technology.
Translation: AdX can’t disadvantage publishers for using rival adtech, while DFP can’t favor an ad simply because the winning bid came from Google.
Stoltz said Google’s presence on both the buying and selling sides of online advertising had created an opaque marketplace that disadvantaged publishers. He said the remedies should “create a fairer market and put the other sell-side platforms on a more even playing field” with Google.
Google Ads can’t bid directly into DFP or favor Google-owned adtech in open-web display
Translation: Google can’t recreate its Google-only bidding pipeline another way. Google Ads can still prioritize AdX when doing so would produce better results for advertisers — because, for example, it offers better fraud or privacy protections — just not because Google owns it.
Goel said the principle should be that Google’s buying tools allocate advertisers’ money based on where they’ll get the best return, rather than funneling it toward Google’s own products.
A monitor, technical committee, and internal compliance officer will oversee Google.
Translation: A court-appointed monitor, paid for by Google, will police its compliance and can inspect Google’s source code, algorithms, and documents, and interview employees.
Fore said independent monitors can be particularly useful in complex technology cases, where companies may technically comply with an order without fulfilling its broader intent.
“I kind of wish that more judges would appoint independent monitors for complex cases like this, where there will be a million disputes about whether or not Google is complying with the order,” Fore said.
While the judge has decided the remedies, the final legal order spelling out exactly how they will work hasn’t yet been issued. Google has said it plans to appeal part of the court’s liability ruling.
Read the full article here
