_20240819014156_original_image_47.webp)
YouTube CEO Neal Mohan testified Monday in a pivotal moment during Google’s federal antitrust trial, asserting that Google’s dominance in the advertising technology market stemmed from innovation, not anti-competitive practices.
The trial, which entered its second week, addresses accusations by the Justice Department that Google holds a monopoly in the ad tech sector, using its market power to stifle competition.
Mohan, a key figure in Google’s ad tech growth since its acquisition of DoubleClick in 2008, defended the company’s actions, stating that its success in the advertising industry was a response to consumer and business demand.
He mentioned that Google expanded into new areas of ad technology to meet the needs of its clients, including publishers and advertisers. “Our success falls back to one single thing: product innovation and the services we were able to offer,” Mohan testified before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit, filed last year alongside eight states, accuses Google of abusing its market dominance through the DoubleClick acquisition, arguing that the tech giant raised ad prices and harmed publishers by taking a significant share of revenue. In particular, the government mentioned internal emails and documents involving Mohan, which they say demonstrate how Google used its market power to push out competitors and consolidate control over the tools used to place online ads.
Google, however, refuted the claims, arguing that the case narrowly focuses on split-second auctions for web ads while ignoring the broader, more competitive landscape that now includes social media and in-app advertising. Google’s lawyers also pointed out that its strategy to acquire and expand its ad tech offerings was not unusual, as other major companies like Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL made similar moves during the same period.
Mohan, expected to be the highest-ranking Google executive to testify, stressed that Google’s actions were in line with market trends and competition, framing the company’s rise as a natural outcome of meeting industry needs through innovation. The case continues as the court delves into the company’s role in shaping the online ad market.
(Inputs from NYT)
