Rundown: Highlights as sparks begin to fly on Day 2 of Google’s latest antitrust trial

After the opening arguments, the antitrust case continued from the explanations of the ad tech market to make accusations as the witnesses took the stand and expressed their complaints about the increasing power of Google in this area over the years 15 years ago.

The DOJ was ready to show what many have suspected for years from the witness box, and on Day 2 of the hearings, sparks began to fly when the court heard from Google’s critics speak loudly from the witness stand and clear testimony from contemporaries.

Below are some of the highlights heard recently at the September 10th ad tech trial, including testimony from a former Googler in the form of Eisar Lipkovitz – an analyst who claimed PTSD during his as Google vp of engineering for display. and video ads.

Google calls reviewers ‘opinionated and unproductive’

Google voice analyst Stephanie Layser, now at AWS but formerly a senior executive at News Corp., chimed in, noting the difficulties of trying to communicate with Google, even if they on the other side of the table they have the power of the world. (legacy) large news publisher.

For example, he compared Google’s 2019 offering of price auctions to getting products down your throat. He said that after speaking out in frustration, he received feedback from Google that he was “invalid opinion” based on Layser’s testimony.

During his video testimony, Lipkovitz recalled how Google executives wanted to “drain the swamp” in their search for headlines, a then-new term used by Former President Donald Trump.

Long-time readers of Digiday will know that headline buying was a way to reduce Google’s monopoly on online advertising — a situation created by the popularity of its DFP ad server, according to the complaint. of the DOJ – which became popular in the mid-2010s, therefore. allowing other supply-side platforms to compete.

“We believed then, and I still believe today, that many SSPs did not add real value, so we looked at all the approaches they took to see if these were the we call them dirty auctions or convoluted daisy-chaining is a short-term success for advertisers,” he said when asked to describe an email exchange that referred to Google’s efforts to counter the headline bids. or “clear the swamp.”

Curious voices were silenced, not encouraged at Google

Lipkovitz also described how he was told to keep quiet when he raised his concerns about programs like the Unified Pricing Rules, adding that “as a liberal guy,” he wanted to be more vocal about it in instead of decreasing, but he was told not to increase. worries. He also said that it became more difficult to do anything and that it was a secret who was making decisions at Google.

He later spoke of experiencing PTSD from other Google insiders who he said were unwilling to discuss potential options such as buying rival exchanges, “playing games, ” and walking very slowly. “There are a lot of people. Society – and I still have PTSD from that – who are not willing to have a Socratic discussion,” he said.

The problem of exposure to online ad auctions

A major part of the DOJ’s complaint is Google’s handling of online ad auctions—a concern that has arisen since Google owns ad technology at every level of such media business—with many obscure names like “Jedi Blue” or “Project”. Poirot” is set to air in the coming weeks.

Yesterday, Lipkovitz noted that Project Poirot does not affect AdX, but would lower win rates on other ads in hopes of shifting rates to AdX. However this is not disclosed to advertisers, publishers or other SSPs.

“I don’t think you make customers trust you by telling them what they can’t do,” he said in his testimony.

The case continues…

Of course, Google denies such allegations, and in the next four to six weeks, it will no doubt strengthen its defense, however on the day of the trial, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vp, regulatory affairs said, “Google’s ad products are designed to work with our competitors,” in a blog post, adding ” DOJ case exposes risks of inefficiency and high prices .”