After successfully countering the US Department of Justice’s challenge regarding illegal monopoly in online searches, Google now faces another threat to its internet dominance in a trial centered around potentially abusive digital advertising practices.

This trial, which commenced on Monday in Alexandria, Virginia, focuses on the detrimental ruling by US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in April, who deemed certain aspects of Google’s digital advertising technology as an illegal monopoly. The judge concluded that Google’s actions were reducing competition and harming online publishers who depend on this system for revenue.

Over the next two weeks, Google and the Justice Department will present evidence in court and seek rulings on how to restore competitive market conditions, in what is being referred to as a “relief” trial according to Judge Brinkema.

As the Justice Department progresses, Brinkema has instructed Google to divest parts of its advertising technology. Google’s legal team argues that this could lead to “confusion and damage” to consumers and the overall internet ecosystem. However, the Justice Department contends that this is the most efficient and immediate approach to dismantling monopolies that have stifled competition and innovation for years.

“The goal of the relief is to take necessary steps to restore competition,” stated Julia Tarver Wood from the DOJ’s antitrust division during the opening remarks.

Wood accused Google of manipulating the market in a manner that conflicts with the principles of free competition.

“The means of fraud are hidden within computer code and algorithms,” Wood remarked.

In response, Google’s attorney Karen Dunn argued that the proposed government intervention was unreasonable and extreme, asserting that the DOJ aimed to eliminate Google from the competitive landscape entirely.

The Justice Department is “advocating for a solution that addresses a past overshadowed by technological advances and market shifts in digital advertising consumption,” Google’s attorneys contended during the trial.

Regardless of the judges’ verdict, Google plans to appeal any earlier decisions labeling its advertising networks as a monopoly, although an appeal can only proceed once a remedy is established.

This case was initiated under the Biden administration in 2023 and threatens the intricate network that Google has built over the last 17 years to bolster its dominant position in the digital advertising sector. Digital ad sales contribute significantly to the $350 billion revenue generated by Google’s services division for its parent company, Alphabet Inc.

Google asserts that it has made considerable adjustments to its “advertising manager” system, including more transparency and options for pricing, to address concerns highlighted in the judge’s ruling.

From the Frying Pan into the Fire

Google’s legal struggle regarding its advertising technology signifies another confrontation, following a recent case in which a federal judge condemned the major search engine as an illegal monopoly, leading to Remedy Hearings earlier this year aimed at combatting fraud.

In that scenario, the Justice Department suggested a strict enforcement measure that would mandate Google to sell its widely-used Chrome browser. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta opted for a more measured approach in a recent ruling that reshaped the search market, which is undergoing changes driven by artificial intelligence technology.

Google opposed all aspects of Mehta’s ruling, yet the outcome was generally perceived as a mere slap on the wrist. This sentiment contributed to a surge in Alphabet’s stock price, yielding a 20% increase since Mehta’s decision, elevating the company’s market valuation to over $3 trillion, making it one of only four publicly traded companies to achieve such a milestone.

With indications that the results of the Search Monopoly case could significantly impact advertising technology practices, Judge Brinkema has instructed both Google and the Department of Justice to incorporate Mehta’s decision into their arguments in forthcoming trials.

As seen in previous search cases, Google’s legal representatives have already asserted in court documents that the AI technologies applied by competitors in ad networks, like those operated by Meta, have transformed market dynamics, making a “radical” approach proposed by the Justice Department unnecessary.