What you need to know: 

• For context and before we wrap this case up, below are key headline findings that emerged from the trial.
• Google has 91 per cent of the global ad server market.
• Google Ads controls 87 per cent of global ad demand.
• Google’s AdX trades 56 per cent of the world’s ads.
• Google banked US$238 billion last year.
• 87.5 per cent of its revenue was from ads.
• Google delivers 13 billion publisher ads per day.
• Nine in 10 global publishers rely on it.
• So do eight in 10 of the world’s advertisers.
• Every global ad agency uses it.
• Two fifths of global video ads are traded there.
• Google Ads sends 83 per cent of its ads to its own auction tools.
• Four in five of News Corp’s digital ad dollars come from Google.
• Three in five of Daily Mail’s ads come from Google.
• The Daily Mail estimated leaving Google would cost US$4 million-a-year.
• News Corp said quitting Google would lose $9 million a year.
• Google now banks the combined earnings of every global publisher every three days.

The US Government’s antitrust trial over Google’s grip on global digital advertising has ended three weeks into its six week run – and now the real fighting begins.

In a fast-tracked but often turbulent trial, Judge Leonie Brinkema axed witnesses, criticised waffling testimony and picked out lawyers for avoiding the key issues.

The case surrounds a US Department of Justice (DoJ) allegation that Google has monopolised digital advertising by having the dominant ad server, ad supply, and ad exchange, and tying them together, making it unavoidable in trade, period.

Google then levied fees 10x that of rivals, taking a 36 per cent clip on all ad revenue delivered through its tech.

The DoJ argues that premium journalism was the biggest loser. News Corp and The Daily Mail both testified that they lost millions, forcing them to slash jobs and reduce reporting.

Both admitted they are now reliant on Google for 60 to 80 per cent of their ad supply, and were unable to leave because doing so risked millions. 

US publishing giant Gannett said collapsing ad revenue led it to lay off two thirds of its workforce - 22,000 employees.

The DoJ further alleged that Google used its dominance to buy rivals, and plotted to scupper emerging technologies like header bidding.

Justice Department lawyers have specifically asked Judge Brinkema to break-up Google’s ad tech if she rules that it forms the backbone of a monopoly.

Google has denied the allegations, arguing its tech stack is vital to enabling the digital advertising economy, and that it has many competitors.

Key to its defence is its argument that no such market as open web display ads exists. 

Defence witnesses repeatedly argued that even if open web display did exist once, it’s long been overtaken by walled garden advertising in apps, and now AI.

Without Google’s tech, and safety protocols, the web would be flooded with poor quality ads, which would be worse for consumers and advertisers, it argued.

Evidence surfaced during the trial showing how Google pivoted its ad strategy to selling ads on third party sites when it bought DoubleClick for $3 billion in 2017.

It then focused on growing ad inventory by selling ads on premium publishers.

The then head of advertising was revealed in an internal email saying the business was reliant on persuading publishers to join.

“You have to understand that while the advertisers account for the revenue, the business depends on relationships with publishers,” David Rosenblatt told execs. “If you don’t have access to inventory, you have nothing to say to advertisers.” 

He later said the mission was to crush competition, and boasted that leaving Google ad tech was “a nightmare” for publishers, and “required an act of God”.

Over the course of the case, evidence was presented showing Google charging high prices, eventually banking 36 per cent of every dollar of ad revenue.

There will now be a short hiatus before Judge Brinkema hears closing arguments in late November, and a judgement is expected before the end of the year.

Adweek reported: “If Google is forced to sell its publisher ad tech business, it could eventually increase competition in the market. However, given the tangled nature of adtech, disrupting the balance between Google’s sell-side tech and publishers’ business models could lead to some wild uncertainties, complications, and chaos in the short-term, according to publishers particularly around changing the level of demand and incurring publisher costs.

It quoted Scott Messer, founder of consultancy Messer Media, saying: “The winners are going to be those who have premium offerings and can command the attention of buyers. The losers are going to be the long tail of the web with relatively undifferentiated supply and lower-quality inventory.”

But that was the great pitch from the burgeoning adtech sector 15 years ago when it needed premium publishers and their advertising inventory to underwrite the new era of automated trading – it would be faster, more efficient, more personalised and without question, would spin off higher yields. That really worked out, as we’ve seen laid bare in this trial. 

It now all comes down to Judge Leonie Brinkema. Will she reshape a global market forecast by 2028 to have a trillion dollars pumping through the complex labyrinth of opaque ad market takers and makers?