American justice asks Google to sell Adx and DFP, two of the pillars of its advertising empire
I would like to know how much money has spent several fines, fines and lawsuits in recent years.
Because sure it has been a lot. And sometimes it has not served him too much.
In a new judicial decision, again historic, the United States Department of Justice has proposed a series of sanctions and structural and behavioral measures to end Google's anti -competitive practices in the digital advertising market. These measures seek to restore competition in the sector and prevent the company from continuing to use its monopolistic power to distort the market. The sentence goes beyond simple economic sanctions and focuses on dividing key Google assets and prohibiting practices that unfairly favor their products.
As the court explained, «digital advertising is the vital element of the Internet, since it finances much of its development and provides free access to an extraordinary amount of content and services to US consumers. As demonstrated in the trial and reflected in the opinion of the court, Google has participated in an exclusion campaign that lasts a decade to acquire, protect and consolidate its monopolistic power in two crucial markets for digital advertising ».
Structural measures: the ADX and DFP division
This decision in turn of the Judgment of the end of April this yearin which American justice found Google monopoly in the field of advertising Digital Programmatic. That judgment, in which some of the possible measures to be carried out by the company were dropped, now has this decision. In it, one of the most drastic proposals of the court is the Division of The platform used by digital media and websites to manage the available advertising spaces (DFP) and the advertisement exchange platform: the digital market where the spaces offered by the editors are auctioned (ADX).
In April, the court found that Google forced the editors to use DFP to access Adx's demand, and offered advantages such as the “Last look” that allowed its platform to overcome other offers after seeing them. This strategy closed the market, restricted free competition and harmed both editors and other intermediaries.
In a normal digital auction environment, when a user enters a website, several platforms. Each launches its offer without knowing what others offer, as in a sealed auction. But in the system that Google implemented with its ADX platform within DFP, the rules were different: Google reserved the right to see all other bids before making its final decision. That was the “last look”: the last look. That is, before a winner was chosen, ADX (Google Exchange) could see what the highest offer of others was and offer only one more cent to winning the auction, even if it had originally offered much less.
ADX, a key tool in Google's advertising monopoly
Now, The court concludes that ADX has been a central tool for Google monopoly, Since by linking it closely with Adwords, the Google advertisement system has managed to restrict competition. For this reason, It is proposed that Google divides Adx and sells it to competitorsunder the supervision of a trustee designated by the court. This measure aims to release the advertisement market and Allow other platforms to compete on equal terms.
Similarly, A division into DFP phases is proposedthe advertisement server that Google has used to boost its monopoly in the advertisement publication market. The proposal includes three phases:
Integration with third -party platforms: Google should allow DFP to integrate with external auction systems, opening the door to new actors in the market.
Auction code separation: In a second phase, Google should separate the code that manages the adurate auction, allowing them to be carried out outside DFP by third party platforms.
Sale of DFP to competitors: Finally, Google must sell DFP to a buyer approved by the court to ensure that control over this strategic asset is not maintained.
Behavioral prohibitions: braking unfair practices
In addition to sales, the court has imposed a series of behavioral prohibitions They seek to prevent Google from continuing to distort the competitive process. Some of the most relevant measures are:
Non -discriminatory access to products: Google must ensure that your advertisement purchase tools, such as Adwords and DV360, Do not favor your own products to the detriment of competitors. This includes not redirecting the demand for adx or DFP ads preferentially.
Prohibition of the link between products: Google will not be able to link its products among different markets (for example, between advertisement advertisement servers and advertisement tools), which will allow competitors to offer independent solutions without restrictions imposed by the technological giant.
Equal access conditions: Google must allow your advertisement to interact with other products equally, without establishing conditions that favor your own systems.
Additional measures: transparency, data and monitoring
To ensure that Google does not continue taking advantage of its dominant position, the court has proposed several Transparency and data control measures:
Share DFP and ADX data: Google must share relevant DFP and ADX data with external actors in non -discriminatory terms, allowing other competitors to use information to improve their own advertising products.
Deposit and Technical Assistance: Google must place 50% of the income generated by ADX and DFP in an account to ensure that it does not continue to benefit from its anti -competitive practices while the sales process is carried out. In addition, it will provide technical assistance to external platforms that help restore competition.
Constant monitoring: The court has proposed the designation of a monitoring trust that supervises the division process and the implementation of correction measures. This trust will ensure that Google complies with the provisions of the sentence and that does not resort to practices that harm the competition.
Google's response
Google has shown its disagreement with the ruling, specifically as regards Google Ad Manager, the DFP successor platform, in which DFP functionalities are integrated with other Google tools such as ADX, Adsense, and DV360, to facilitate editors to manage their direct and programmatic ads.
According to the company's statement, Google argues that the sentence does not affect competition in its advertising tools for advertisers or their acquisitions, but disagrees on the ruling related to its tool for editors. Google argues that Google Ad Manager It represents a small part of your business and that will appeal the decision.
In this sense, Google has proposed a series of measures that, according to the company, adequately address the courts of the court and that, according to Google, would facilitate competition without causing significant disruption in the market. Measures include:
Availability of ADX real -time offers for third -party advertisements: This would allow other ads servers to access ADX real -time offers for advertisements on the open web, which would improve competition.
Elimination of unified price rules (Unified Pricing Rules): Google proposes to abolish unified price rules for advertisements on the open web, which would allow editors to establish different prices for different bidders, giving the editors more flexibility in their price strategies.
Commitment to eliminate the dynamics of “First look” and “last look”: Google also undertakes not to use the “First Look” and “Last Look” auction dynamics for advertisements on the open web, practices that, according to the court, contributed to its monopoly. Google argues that these practices were already eliminated from Google Ad Manager years ago.
In any caseGoogle criticizes the doj proposalswhich means dividing Google Ad Manager, a measure that Google considers excessive and harmful to your business. According to Google, Forcing an ad manager could break a key tool that allows advertisers to connect with the editors efficiently and that, in addition, it is used by small businesses and applications editors to monetize its contents. Google argues that breaking Google Ad Manager could not only generate additional costs, but also disproportionately to small businesses, which depend on the affordable and easy -to -use tools of Google to grow.
Impact of measures: How will the digital advertising market change?
This sentence marks An important precedent for the future of antitrust laws in the technological sector. If Google is forced to make these changes, bases could sit for future regulatory interventions in technology companies that abuse their power in the market.
The measures proposed by the Court have the potential to transform the digital advertising market significantly. If they are implemented effectively, competition could restore competition in a sector that has been dominated by Google for more than a decade. These actions would allow other platforms to compete with equal conditions, benefiting both editors and advertisers, who would now have more options and access to tools without the restrictions imposed by Google.
What does it mean for consumers?
In the long term, the restoration of the competition could directly benefit consumers. With greater competition, prices could decrease, the quality of advertising products could improve, and advertisers could obtain more efficient results for their investment. All this would result in more fair advertising and a user experience less focused exclusively on Google products.
Image: Chatgpt
