The upcoming trial will center on Google’s control over online advertising technology, particularly its acquisition of DoubleClick, which has significantly influenced the US ad market.

In Washington, Google’s dominance in online advertising has long been a subject of scrutiny. The focus is on Google Ad Manager, the company's ad tech suite used globally by websites to sell advertising space. This technology conducts rapid auctions to place ads whenever a page is loaded, consolidating Google's power in the ad market.

On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia will oversee the commencement of a trial in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses Google of monopolizing its ad technology and violating antitrust laws.

This case marks Google's second antitrust trial in less than a year. In August, a federal judge ruled that Google had unlawfully maintained a monopoly in online search, a significant win for the DOJ.

This new trial is part of a broader federal effort to challenge the power of Big Tech companies. Antitrust regulators are testing century-old competition laws against firms that have transformed the ways people shop, communicate, and access information. Apple, Amazon, and Meta (Facebook’s parent company) have also faced similar lawsuits for alleged misuse of their market power.

The DOJ declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, and Google refrained from additional remarks beyond a 2023 blog post where Dan Taylor, a Google executive, criticized the DOJ’s attempt to "pick winners and losers" in the ad tech sector.

Meanwhile, another antitrust case against Google is progressing. Last Friday, Judge Amit P. Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia established a timeline to determine remedies by August. The DOJ has considered requesting a breakup of the company.

Although the financial stakes of the new trial are smaller compared to the core search business case—which represents about 57% of Google’s revenue—the outcome could still significantly impact Google and the broader online advertising landscape. The government is pushing for the breakup of Google’s ad tech business, including the divestiture of DoubleClick's technology, acquired by Google in 2008 for $3.1 billion.

Google’s ad tools for publishers currently dominate 87% of the US market. The DOJ asserts that Google’s advertising technology generated approximately $31.7 billion in 2021, a minor portion of the company’s overall profits. The government argues that Google’s ad tech monopoly leads to higher costs for advertisers and publishers, adversely affecting industries such as news media.

Doug Melamed, a former acting assistant attorney general, noted that antitrust issues with ad tech are crucial as they could lead to significant changes, including the potential breakup of Google. A favorable ruling for the government could force Google to divest DoubleClick and other ad tech assets, altering industry dynamics.

William Kovacic, former FTC chair, and Roger Alford, a Notre Dame law professor, believe that such a breakup could profoundly impact the online ad industry, given its foundational role in the free internet. Alford also consults on a similar lawsuit led by the Texas Attorney General against Google.

Google plans to argue that its success is due to superior technology in a competitive market. The company claims its ad system is “extraordinarily sophisticated” and continually evolving. Google asserts that millions of businesses choose its ad tech ecosystem for its effectiveness.

The DOJ’s case, according to Google, is too narrowly focused on webpage ads, which have been overshadowed by newer advertising platforms like social media and apps.

Throughout the trial, testimonies are expected from news publishers such as News Corp, Vox Media, and The New York Times Co., presented via recorded depositions.

Daniel Francis, an assistant professor at NYU Law School and former FTC staffer, views the trial as a critical indicator for future tech industry practices. Antitrust experts suggest that the case could set precedents for the DOJ’s legal arguments in upcoming cases, including those against Apple and Meta, focusing on similar acquisition-driven dominance concerns.