Google ad-tech antitrust trial remedy phase, day 4: The nitty-gritty

A puzzling question came on day four of the remedy phase of United States vs. Google LLC, in a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, when the Google team questioned Jon Weissman, a computer science professor at the University of Minnesota.

Google’s lawyers asked him if he knew whether AdX, Google’s ad exchange, is involved with Google Docs, among other Google properties (it is not).

Before the day’s end, each legal team asked questions about the feasibility of potential remedies. Thursday’s questioning was a departure from the earlier days of the remedy phase, when buy-side advertiser perspectives were in the spotlight and broader concerns, like generative AI and transparency into Google’s ads business were the focus.

Marketing Brew broke down a few key moments from Thursday’s proceedings below.

Rocket science: Weissman, a key DOJ witness, seemed to say that from an engineering perspective, a divestiture of AdX or DFP is feasible.

• Weissman said that Google’s use of the “separation of concerns” design principle in its code, which makes it so that changes made in one part of a system won’t affect other parts, could support a successful divestiture.
• When it comes to open-sourcing final auction logic, the DOJ has proposed open-sourcing remedies regarding DFP. He pointed to Google’s Android system, which is already open-source.

Back in the day: Google’s cross-examination of Weissman involved questioning the relevance of his credentials as well as matters that could impact the migration of technology if AdX or DFP were to be divested. (As mentioned in Marketing Brew’s coverage of the trial, Google is against an AdX divestiture.)

• Google’s lawyers claimed that Weissman had last worked at a tech company in the early 1990s, before the internet or ad tech were widely used. The DOJ pushed back on this later, asking him to discuss his more recent involvement in the tech industry.
• Google’s team also quizzed Weissman on his knowledge of modifications that could be needed if AdX or DFP were divested.

Inside baseball: Tim Craycroft, VP and GM of Google Advertising, was next up.

• The DOJ’s team questioned him on Project Sunday, an initiative, in which he said that Google had determined it was possible to separate AdX or DFP and that publishers would remain live on the platform throughout the transition.
• Internal analyses found that DFP final auction logic could be made open-source, he claimed.

Google’s team asked Craycroft about his time overseeing the display ads business for Amazon, where he worked before Google.

• Craycroft seemed to confirm that his team had considered building a DFP competitor, but ultimately did not.

As the remedy phase begins its second week, the jury’s still out (pun intended) on which witnesses will be prioritized next. Check out our prior coverage of the first, second, and third days of the remedy phase.