An American judge said the Google technology giant has a monopoly on online advertising technology.
The United States Ministry of Justice, as well as 17 American states, continued Google, arguing that the technology giant illegally dominated the technology that determines which advertisements should be placed online and where.
This is the second antitrust case that Google lost in a year, after being judged that the company also had a monopoly on online research.
Google said it would appeal the decision.
“Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our advertising technology tools are simple, affordable and effective,” said Lee-Ann Mulholland’s regulatory business manager.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema said that in the decision, Google had “voluntarily engaged in a series of anti -competitive acts” which allowed it to “acquire and maintain monopoly power” on the market.
“This exclusion substantially leads to the customers of Google publishers, the competitive process and, ultimately, consumers of open web information,” she said.
Google lost two charges, while a third party was rejected.
“We have won half of this case and we will call on the other half,” said Mulholland.
“The court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, like DoubleClick, do not harm competition.”
The decision is an important victory for the American antitrust executors, according to Laura Phillips-Sawyer, professor at the School of Law of the University of Georgia.
“This indicates that not only are agencies willing to continue, but also that judges are willing to enforce the law against large technological companies,” she said.
She said the verdict establishes an important legal precedent and should affect decision -making in American companies.
Google’s lawyers argued that the case was focusing too much on its past activities, and prosecutors have ignored other major suppliers of advertising technology such as Amazon.
“Google has repeatedly used its market power to reference its own products, stifle innovation and deprive high -end publishers worldwide from the critical income necessary to maintain high -quality journalism and entertainment,” said Jason Kint, head of Next digital content, a professional association representing online publishers.
Google has large companies alongside buyers and the seller of the online advertising market, as well as an exchange of announcements that corresponds to demand and supply.
Internet users will not notice an online difference following the decision, said Anupam Chander, professor of law and technology at the University of Georgetown.
But this affects “the division of funds between advertisers, publishers and advertising service providers”.
“The judge seems to be willing to command structural changes in Google’s announcements exchange practices, which can somewhat affect Google’s net result, but does not necessarily seem to threaten its fundamental value proposal as an advertising intermediary,” he added.
In a series in the process of antitrust prosecution, the American government maintains that Google and its parent company Alphabet should be broken – which could include the sale of parts of the company such as the Chrome browser.
The American affair will now go to a second phase of “remedies”, which could also lead to the rupture of the alphabet, said John Kwoka, professor of economics at Northeastern University.
In September, the Watchdog of the United Kingdom competition temporarily found that Google used anti-competitive practices to dominate the online advertising technology market.
