After last month's landmark ruling against Google by District Court Judge Amit Mehta in its online monopoly case, the tech behemoth is now facing a new round of antitrust hearings in a different case.

This second suite, filed by the DOJ in January 2023, focuses on Google's ad business. Specifically, the acquisitions the company made along its path to dominance. As the lawsuit claims, Google took control of both sides of the ad sales market and bought up competition in both.

“Google’s monopolies in each of these separate markets was no accident but rather the result of a campaign to condition, control, and tax digital advertising transactions over 15 years….This campaign was exclusionary, anticompetitive, and mutually reinforcing," states a pre-trial filing by the DOJ, reports The Guardian.

Meanwhile, Karen Dunn, Google's lawyer in the case, argued that the DOJ has an antiquated understanding of the market. “The DOJ’s case is like a time capsule,” Dunn said, referencing Blockbuster video and Blackberry mobile phones, notes Politico. “Interference at this moment is damaging” to innovation, Dunn continued, adding the rapid pace of change for the industry.

But in a two-hour interrogation this week of Neal Mohan, YouTube's CEO and a former Google Ad exec, the DOJ cited an email exchange Mohan had with another executive about purchasing a rival digital ad firm, Admeld.  "One way to make sure we don’t get further behind in the market is picking up the [company] with the most traction and parking it somewhere,” the exec wrote to Mohan. Acquired Admeld, the email exchange continued, “would let us solve the problems from a position of strength.”

This strategy of acquiring a rival company and "parking it" became a central point of argument from both the DOJ and Mohan, writes The Verge. While the DOJ claimed parking a company after acquiring it demonstrated explicit anti-competitive behavior, Mohan claimed "that’s absolutely not what was going on." Mohan explained parking as acquiring a company and letting it function as before, while simultaneously integrating it into Google's tech—a process that takes time.

For her part, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had little follow-up after the testimony, keeping her position on the case largely unknown.

Karen Dunn

Dunn's presence in the case makes things a little sticky for the DOJ. This case against Google was brought forth by President Biden's Justice Department. Yet, Dunn was the lawyer and personal confidant that trained Vice President Kamala Harris for her debate against Donald Trump. Should Harris win November's election, this case will surely be facing appeals. How will Harris's DOJ approach the case?

Verdict

With one massive win under its belt against Google, the DOJ may be feeling confident about its second monopoly case against the tech giant in as many months. Yet, a perfect batting average is far from guaranteed here. It may be up to the EU to continue prosecuting this case, and change Google's ad business.