Google wrapped up its defense against the Department of Justice's ad tech breakup proposal today, with testimony from rival CEOs and small business owners painting the DOJ's remedy as technically impossible and economically destructive. The testimonies could prove pivotal as the court weighs whether to force the sale of Google Ad Manager, a move that would reshape the $200 billion digital advertising market.
The curtain fell today on one of the most consequential antitrust cases in tech history, as Google concluded its defense against the Justice Department's push to break up its ad tech empire. But the real drama unfolded in the witness testimonies, where even the DOJ's own experts seemed to undercut the government's case for forcing a sale of Google Ad Manager.
James Avery, CEO of rival ad server Kevel, delivered what might have been the most damaging blow to the DOJ's position. Called as a government witness, Avery testified that Google's proposed behavioral remedies - including direct, non-preferential connections to its exchange - would "resolve the concerns in this case." For a competitor to essentially validate Google's alternative solution speaks volumes about the technical realities the court must weigh.
Even more telling was the admission from Professor Robin Lee, the DOJ's lead economist, who conceded that divestiture wouldn't be necessary if behavioral remedies were "well-crafted and enforced." That's a remarkable statement from the architect of the government's economic case for breakup.
The technical impossibility argument gained steam through testimony from Google's engineering leadership. Professor Jason Nieh called the proposed breakup a "highly complicated software engineering undertaking, with no guarantee of success," while Ad Manager's director of engineering Glenn Bernston was more blunt: "It makes no sense. One can build it, but it won't work."
But Google didn't rely solely on technical arguments. The company paraded a series of small business owners and publishers who painted the DOJ remedy as an economic disaster in waiting. Jeff Taxdahl, founder of Thread Logic, captured the sentiment perfectly: "If Google's ad tech tools are broken, it's not clear what will take their place. A fragmented system would lack Google's reach and efficiency, so we'd have to spend far more time managing multiple ad and analytics platforms."
The testimony from wikiHow CEO Elizabeth Douglas was particularly compelling, as she described her dependence on Google's advertising revenue: "I'm here today because I'm worried for my business. We require the revenue that we get from our advertising to innovate and to run our business and it scares me to think that it is going to potentially be changing." She added there's "just no SSP that I trust as much as Google, in particular with the consistency that Google pays us every month."
