Google denies Facebook collusion claims

Google denies Facebook collusion claims

It has rejected involvement in any anti-competitive practices

Google recently filed a motion to dismiss the antitrust complaint filed against it by a coalition of state attorneys. The motion denied the allegation that Google colluded with Facebook to manipulate programmatic ad markets in a collaborative project codenamed 'Jedi Blue.'

The suit claimed that the project intended to limit ad header bidding practices. It alleged that the publishers were forced to use Google's ad server to access its ad exchange. Other allegations were that Google had held back rivals from using its Open Bidding program and that it rigged ad auctions to favor Facebook.

Google argued that the claims were largely untimely. It maintained that the Doctrine of Laches barred the claims that have ceased to exist and that injunctive relief was not available for such claims. It strongly disavowed involvement in any anti-competitive practices.

The company relied on cases to show that "to safeguard the incentive to innovate, the possession of monopoly power will not be found unlawful unless it is accompanied by an element of anticompetitive conduct."

Google also claimed that despite amassing a lengthy collection of grievances, each grievance comes down to a plea for Google to share its data or to design its products in ways that would help its rivals.

The motion stated that the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 had no such requirement. None of the conduct alleged in the complaint fell into the narrow exception to the general rule. The law said that any firm could choose with whom it would deal. The courts were rightly skeptical of challenges to how a company designed its own products, especially when innovation created more choices for the consumers.

Google further challenged the allegation of forcing publishers to use its ad server. The claimants admitted that Google offered "exchange-only contracts" until 2018, which indicated that it allowed publishers to contract for its ad exchange without taking its ad server. Thus, there was no tie during that period and the element of coercion was absent.

Adam Cohen, Google's director of economic policy, explained his company's position. He said that the charges did not meet the legal bar for bringing the matter to trial and misrepresented the company that was based on unviable antitrust accusations.