DOJ Delivers Closing Arguments in Adtech Antitrust Case Against Google

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) presented its final arguments in the landmark antitrust case against Google, accusing the tech giant of monopolistic practices within the digital advertising market. The trial, which began on September 9 in the U.S. Eastern District Court of Virginia in Alexandria, is one of the most high-profile antitrust cases in recent history, targeting Google’s dominance in the online adtech ecosystem.

"Rigging the Rules of the Road"

DOJ attorney Aaron Teitelbaum led the closing arguments, asserting that Google’s business practices intentionally stifled competition in digital advertising. "Google rigged the rules of the road," Teitelbaum told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, according to Reuters. His comments reflect the DOJ's core argument: that Google used its overwhelming market power to manipulate adtech systems, disadvantaging rivals and consolidating its dominance at the expense of competition and innovation.

Judge Brinkema Warns Google About Evidence Issues

Arielle Garcia, director of intelligence at digital advertising watchdog Check My Ads, provided further insight into the trial’s final moments via a LinkedIn post. According to Garcia, Judge Brinkema warned Google lawyer Karen Dunn about venturing into "dangerous territory" by accusing the DOJ of selectively quoting Google employee communications without context. Brinkema pointed out that Google itself had failed to preserve evidence that could have offered that missing context, a critical blow to the company’s defense.

DOJ Criticizes Google’s Witness Strategy

During its closing argument, the DOJ criticized Google's reliance on internal witnesses to make its case. According to Garcia, the DOJ pointed out that Google called only one witness who was not a Google employee or financially tied to the company through grants. This strategy raised questions about the impartiality and credibility of Google’s defense witnesses, reinforcing the DOJ’s argument that Google’s adtech ecosystem operates in a manner that undermines fair competition.

Broader Implications for the Adtech Industry

The case represents a pivotal moment in the battle to regulate Big Tech’s outsized influence on digital markets. Google controls a significant share of the adtech stack, spanning the tools advertisers use to buy ads, the exchanges where ads are sold, and the platforms where ads appear. Critics argue that this vertical integration gives Google the ability to set terms that favor its own interests, effectively squeezing out competitors and driving up costs for advertisers.

If Judge Brinkema rules against Google, the decision could lead to substantial changes in how digital advertising operates in the U.S., potentially forcing Google to divest portions of its adtech business. Such a ruling could also set a precedent for future antitrust actions against other tech giants accused of monopolistic behavior.

What Comes Next?

Judge Brinkema’s decision will mark the culmination of a months-long trial scrutinizing Google’s practices in the $278 billion U.S. digital ad market. A ruling in favor of the DOJ could reshape the adtech landscape, promoting more competition and limiting Google's power. Conversely, a decision in Google’s favor would bolster the company’s position as a dominant player in the industry.

This trial, closely watched by regulators, advertisers, and competitors, represents a significant chapter in the ongoing effort to address the growing influence of Big Tech. Regardless of the outcome, the case underscores increasing scrutiny of Google’s role in shaping the modern internet economy.