Google is expected to counter the DOJ's historic antitrust lawsuit with claims that it's misunderstood and faces plenty of competition
Google is facing a historic antitrust lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Justice on Tuesday morning.
"Today's lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed," Google Public Policy tweeted. "People use Google because they choose to — not because they're forced to or because they can't find alternatives."
The tech giant is expected to argue that it faces significant competition, despite the fact that very few other companies control products related to every part of the ad buying process.
In a document filed with Australian regulators earlier this year, Google advisors argued that the company is fundamentally pro-competition because its search tool relies on an open internet sustained by ad tech.
"It would be counterproductive for Google to attempt to undermine competition in ad tech, since it would risk damaging its core search business," the paper reads.
Google is gearing up for an antitrust battle that could revolutionize how tech giants function.
On Tuesday, the United States Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, arguing the tech giant snuffs out competition through an illegal web of business deals. These deals, according to the DOJ, make it more difficult for smaller companies to compete and allow Google to dominate search and online advertising.
"Today's lawsuit by the Department of Justice is deeply flawed," Google Public Policy tweeted on Tuesday morning. "People use Google because they choose to — not because they're forced to or because they can't find alternatives."
Google said in the tweet that a full statement on the suit would be released later Tuesday morning. The company is expected to argue that it faces plenty of competition, as the company's head of partnerships, Don Harrison, told US senators in September. However, when pushed, Harrison failed to provide the names of any specific competitors.
"I think there are a few competitors that have tools that have both buy-side and sell-side tools as well as the tools that allow for the provisioning of advertising," Harrison said. "I don't want to say a name because I'm worried I'm going to get it wrong, but I will come back to you with examples of companies."
The New York Times reports that Google made a similar argument in a document filed with Australian government in May. This 67-page document provides a playbook of sorts on how Google plans to defend itself from antitrust allegations, according to The Times.
"The crux of the company's argument: Even though it accounts for almost 30 percent of spending in the global digital ad market, it does not control enough of the industry to overcharge its customers and box out its competitors," The Times reports.
The authors — lawyer Daniel Bitton and economist Stephen Lewis, both hired by Google — argue that scrutiny of Google and ad tech are based on "fundamental misunderstandings" of the company's products and practices.
The paper name checks well-known competitors such as Adobe, Amazon, and Facebook, as well as industry specialists such as MediaMath, OpenX, and Rubicon Project, arguing these other companies are constantly debuting new products and technologies. (As noted by The Times, AT&T is the only one of the companies listed that, like Google, owns products related to every part of the ad buying process.)
Ultimately, the piece argues, Google wants there to be more competition in the ad tech space because its search tool benefits from the "vibrant, open and ad-supported Internet that a competitive ad tech sector helps to sustain."
"It would be counterproductive for Google to attempt to undermine competition in ad tech, since it would risk damaging its core search business," the paper reads.
Earlier this month, House Democrats released a report that found that Google "overwhelmingly" dominated the search market. Facebook and Google have hoarded ad data to create an "advantageous feedback loop" to maintain market dominance, according to the sprawling report.
The DOJ needs to prove that Google's practices harm consumers
Antitrust lawyer David Balto has argued that the DOJ will need to prove that Google's practices harm consumers, not only competitors, a distinction which could play a role in the tech company's case.
"The purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers, not competitors. So the fact that some competitor is disadvantaged or excluded from the market is not an antitrust case," said Balto.
"The way that advertisers have to pay more because of the way auctions are structured – which is a conceivable claim – is not going to matter if it's going to be of the harm to advertisers, it's got to look at the ultimate impact on consumers."
Google alluded to this pro-consumer argument in an October blog post related to the Senate antitrust hearings. The post argues that the antitrust subcommittee reports featured "outdated and inaccurate allegations" from rivals.
"Americans simply don't want Congress to break Google's products or harm the free services they use every day," the post reads. "The goal of antitrust law is to protect consumers, not help commercial rivals."
The legal battle between Google and the DOJ could stretch on for years, as Google seems unlikely to back down without a fight. The outcome of the case will not only determine the future of Google, but also how other tech giants operate.
"If the government wins out over Google, the company could be forced to restructure or possibly separate parts of its business," Business Insider's Isobel Asher Hamilton and Aaron Holmes report. "If Google wins, the case could set a precedent shielding several tech giants from legal scrutiny they're currently facing — but lawmakers could still aim to regulate or break up tech companies through new laws."
Read more about Google's antitrust case:
Read the original article on Business Insider
