October 2, 2024 • 30 mins
Ed Zitron is joined by Jason Kint, CEO of DCN and Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence at CheckMyAds, for the final episode of Better Offline's coverage of the Department of Justice's second antitrust case against Google. The case alleges that "through Serial Acquisitions and Anticompetitive Auction Manipulation, Google Subverted Competition in Internet Advertising Technologies."
Here's a great explainer about how this all works from the Better Offline Reddit.
For more information, visit https://usvgoogleads.com/, follow Jason at https://x.com/jason_kint & follow Arielle at https://x.com/ArielleSGarcia
---
LINKS: https://www.tinyurl.com/betterofflinelinks
Newsletter: https://www.wheresyoured.at/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BetterOffline/
Discord: chat.wheresyoured.at
Ed's Socials:
https://www.instagram.com/edzitron
https://bsky.app/profile/zitron.bsky.social
https://www.threads.net/@edzitron
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Al Zone Media.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I am, as usual
your host ed Zichrono. Today I'm joined again for the
last episode of our DOJV Google Ads series Ariel Garcia
(00:26):
of Check My Ads and of course Jason Kent of DCN.
Thank you so much for coming. What's happened in this
week's This Saga?
Speaker 1 (00:35):
So this week we had the opportunity to listen to
Google's defense. They I haven't done the tally yet, I
intend to, but the vast majority of witnesses they called
were people that either have been paid or still are
paid by Google.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
So that includes people like.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Current employees, small businesses that get big grants from Google,
and their expert witnesses. The most notable one is doctor
Mark Israel, who is at a consultancy called Compass Lexicon.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
He's there, he was their lead economists.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So, if you remember, we've talked about how Google is
trying to argue that ad tech is just one big,
two sided market that connects advertisers and impressions.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Not even publishers.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Publicers don't exist, Okay, So that two sided market argument
comes from Mark Israel's work, or it was his expert
report that really defined that argument and.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
For the listener's sake, what is this man? Like? What
does he do for a living?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, so that's what the DOJ wanted to know. So apparently.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
He makes eighty percent of his money and spends a
five percent of his time being an expert witness, so
literally getting cool paid to say what people want him
to say cool.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
So is that like a job that anyone could do?
Just wondering, but in all serious this looking up this
wonderful man's He has a PhD in economics from Stanford,
MSc in economics from the University of Wisconsin Madison, so
big ten BOYBA in economics from Illinois Wesleyan University. This
man's job is just having a job. It's just like
(02:32):
existing and saying stuff that people asking, like, come on, man,
you can't do this, Well, I mean you can, and
he does.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
He.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
I think it's worth noting he was the expert witness
for Google at the search trial too that they just lost,
and and he's done like fifty or so different cases.
He's also Albertson's and Kroger, which is playing out in
the grocery store space. So yeah, this is his full
time job.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Wait, so he's in the Albatsons and Kroger case as well. Yeah, Jesus,
so this man's this man's job is just like kind
of being a sock puppet, but like a really well
paid one.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Your words. But as somebody sitting there listening to him testify,
I guess I would say, and this happens a lot
of time, I think with economists not to be critical
of the whole field. But it wasn't connected to the
real world at all, And so it was like, you know,
an argument that nobody that understands the actual advertising business
would agree with, like, yeah, it's one big, two sided
(03:28):
market that also competes with Reddit and Facebook and all
these other you know, large platforms, as if they're just
directly similar and comparable.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So, and how did his augument do with the judge?
Speaker 4 (03:43):
I didn't think it did well at all. I mean,
as he was spinning the yarn in the beginning it
I could see where somebody could be convinced that they
didn't really understand the business. But then once the just
Department did their cross, it really fell apart in my mind.
I don't know if if you have a different point
of view.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Yeah, no, I agree with that.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
And you could tell because at one point, when he
was talking about one of the alleged reasonable substitutes that
publishers have, he was basically saying that a publisher that
has a website and sells ads on their website can
just move those ads to their app, right, And so
the judge asks like, well, what if the publisher doesn't
(04:27):
have an app, and he's like, well, then there would
be they would need to build one. She's like, well
that would cost money, no, And he's like, well, yeah,
in that instance, they would need to pay money to
build an app. That was the only and that, like,
that was the simplest pushback point. We're not addressing the
fact that, like the amount of people that end up
on your website versus the amount of readers that will
(04:50):
download an app are not the same. We got to
that today when the DJ called their rebuttal witness. But yeah,
that's the type of flavor that we that we got.
And if the judge was not already skeptical from the direct,
definitely the DOJ absolutely, I literally might. My immediate commentary
was that the DJ mopped the floor with him so so.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
And just to be clear, his argument was, if you
don't like Google's heavy monopoly. You could build your own app.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
That's got yes and that, and it gets more wild,
Like at one point he was saying that if if
a publisher's ad server is is bad, then advertisers might
move money to Facebook. Like these two things have nothing
(05:42):
to do so if the tool a publisher uses to
manage their campaigns as bad, an advertiser might move money
to social media.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
These It was just completely unhinged.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
This man is meant to be smart. That feels like
a dumb guy augment that that doesn't even make technically.
Is this just Google's attempt to just kind of obfiscate
things and try and muddy the waters.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So I think I think I'm speculating, but I think
what he was trying to drive at is that on
some level, a good product on one side has implications
for the other side. It's part of this bigger argument
that they're trying to make for why Google being on
(06:24):
both sides of the market of their alleged you know,
two sided market is good that when they do something
good for advertisers, the knock on effects are good for
publishers and vice versa. What the DOJ points out is
like okay, but that means ostensibly it can't always just
be about the advertisers, right, And we didn't really have
(06:45):
a good answer for that.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
So we're at the end of this trial, though there
are closing arguments in NOVEMBI mentioned before the call. How
did the rest of the last week or so go?
Was it mostly just Google attempting to muddy more like
they come up with new arguments of any kind.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
There's nothing. I didn't hear anything really new, and I
think really the fireworks were mostly today as the just
department brought in one of the publisher witnesses for a rebuttal,
was the only rebuttal witness, and there was a lot
of back and forth about whether or not he was
gonna be able to testify again, but he basically, you
(07:24):
know those arguments that Mark Israel Matthew Wheatland from the
Daily Mail senior executive Daily Mail, and so each of
those arguments that Israel had made, they kind of cleaned
that up, I think the apartment and made it clear
that that wasn't wasn't in the real world, that wasn't
an issue. And but it got to the point then
during when the when Google was doing it's cross where
(07:45):
it got. Really, it's kind of absurd if you were
in the room. I feel like the judge even knew
it was absurd where they were, you know, if he
was cleaning up that that it wasn't a real world
situation that you could just, you know, shut down your
website if things weren't working well with the Google monopoly
and launch an app. And then Google's attorney started to
compare the number of clicks it takes to type in
(08:07):
a website, like literally down to the https colon slash
slash versus downloading an app, and was actually comparing how
much time it takes to do the two different things.
And it was just I could understand how we were
gaining that literal on the last day in the last witness.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
So was the argument the apps are easier to launch
them websites.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
It felt like they were going back to Google's classic
argument of you know, of efficiency and you know, competitions
a click away, and you know, and all these arguments
about how quickly you can do different things. So it
was not working in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
So, I mean in Google's world where they can just
kind of like coerce their users and customers to do
whatever they want them to. Maybe that that, maybe that works,
but it doesn't really matter. How If it's the same
amount of clicks for a consumer, for a user to
download an app as it is to go to a website,
no one can force them to download the app, right.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
But yes, I completely agree. It was just ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
It also was like, because she decided to go there,
it kept every time Wheatland went to talk, she had
to cut him off because he was trying.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
To You could tell me she being the judge here.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
No, no, no.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Every time Wheatland went to talk beyond a yes or no,
Google's council needed to cut him off because she probably
realized that he was going to say, well no, Like
he kept saying, that's one way to get to a website,
and obviously, you know, search results would be another one,
you know.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
So it was just a very odd.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
It really does feel and I said this last episode,
it doesn't feel like Google came in with an argument.
I'm astonished because these are meant to For years, we've
seen these companies as these kind of mammoth organizations that
can do what they want. But in front of a judge,
they just seemed kind of pathetic.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I think that the facts were just so not on
their side that they really struggled. There was not one
witness that they called where on cross examination, DJ didn't
manage to surface something that set Google back a little
bit or introduced something new that was bad, you know
(10:27):
what I mean.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
They just they didn't have very much.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
And so that's why their experts, and specifically Mark Israel,
because the other experts that Google called their analysis relied
heavily on Israel's report, right, so it was really hinging
on Israel. I expected that there would be something at least.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Somewhat compelling there, and when I.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Saw that there was just absolutely nothing there, I mean,
to me, that was the nail on the coffin for
their case.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
It's remarkable. It also kind of suggests that these other
antitrust cases might be similarly chaotic, because you would think that,
I think what is really stunning me, other than the
fact that just kind of incompetent is you'd think they'd
have planned for this, Like Jason, you've been getting you
covered the search trial. Did they have a better argument there?
Speaker 4 (11:31):
They did, and you know, I think their argument there
was you know that they still had kind of a
giant elf in the room that they were spending you know,
upwards of twenty twenty five billion dollars a year for
the search slot. And you know, if they were the
best product out there and consumers, why it naturally then
why they have to pay all that money? That was
the big help in the room. But they at least
(11:53):
could make arguments about exclusionary conduct and a few other
things that they'll try to make in their appeal. I
don't think they're going to win because the appeal goes
to the same as in the same circuit as USB Microsoft,
which it relied on. So but they, you know, it
was more down to illegal arguments and they didn't have
the same issues with deletion of emails and all that
stuff in the same way that came out in this case.
(12:15):
So yeah, I you know, one thing and I can
thinking a lot about is. I mean, as much as
you know they've got, it feels like, you know, almost
every major law firm at their fingertips when they need them,
and experts and paid experts, et cetera. It's a really
complicated chess game when you've got remedies going on in
California from your app store loss, and you've got the
(12:36):
Search case remedies going on in DC and all these
things are you know, dividing executive time within the company,
and you also are trying to manage, you know, your
business at the same time you've got Sundar Forsha going
on TV a couple of nights ago, you know, to
say that you know, everything's all good, right, It's it's
a very complicated chess game no matter who you are.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
And do you think, what do you think these cases
are kind of splitting their attention?
Speaker 4 (13:00):
That would be my I mean, it has to be
at some point, and you you kind of see that
play out in the real world, you know, when you've
got you know, I saw in the Search case. I
think it was like one of the last days where
you had Kent Walker, the chief legal officer at Google,
you know, in the front row and then like literally
move up to the lawyer's table, you know, which was
kind of unusual to try to whisper to some of
(13:22):
the lawyers in real time. So like he's gained involved
right in the actual arguments at the trial as Search
cases weighing down, And I sensed that a little bit today,
Ari L I don't know if you sens this, you
were in the courtroom, but like there was shuffling around
by various Google and and their law firms.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Folks. You know when you say shuffling around, is he
just handing papers to the Yeah?
Speaker 4 (13:43):
I mean there was like almost many huddles happening, you know,
you know, a borderline close to disturbing the judge. But
you had, you know, three or four people leaning back
and forth talking to each other, and then people running
out of the room and stuff. It was it was
like they were, you know, dealing, They were trying to
escalate and deal with things in real time because things
weren't going.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Well, I'm losing this trial.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Like their whole team was there today like that. Everyone
knew that today was going to be the last day.
So Google's entire team was there. And I'll also say
we knew it was a big team between like their
associates and their comms people and stuff, but I didn't
know quite how big it was. They they filled like
(14:27):
the entire middle section of the courtroom, which is the
largest section I'd say they have. They had three times
the amount of people there that dooj did. And because
everyone was there, you could see the full extent of
the shuffling. So even someone next to me, all the
way in the back of the room was having you know,
(14:49):
notes scribbled and people were running back and forth to
them handing them notes.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
So it was like it was very obvious that there was.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
An all hands on deck scramble when the when DJ
called their rebuttal witness and the judge decided to allow
it to proceed.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
And what was so scary about this witness? What was
it that that like chilled.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Them that he had the real world experience to knock
down every single one of Mark Israel's wild recommendation.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
And this was the fellow from the Daily Mail, which just.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Correct correct, right.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
So it's like they were just going to go one
by one and be like, you know, if if an
advertiser moves spending to social does that impact your negotiations
with Google?
Speaker 3 (15:39):
No, you know, like they just kind of went one
by one.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
And because the questions, the hypotheticals are so outlandish, Google
knew that he was going to seem confused by the
very question, like like the premise is so backwards that
it would that his sincere confusion would come across, you know.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
So that there is one person I want to bring
up so big on tech, Tom Blakeley over there. He
brought up on Tuesday that there was testimony from a
guy called doctor Paul Milgram, Yes, from Stamford. Now Blakely
seems to think that this was a good a good
day for Google.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Well, yeah, thing, I wasn't there that day. I was
actually up, which is a whole nother, a whole nother story.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
I was up.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
I ram up in New York real quickly for a conference.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
But I think R A. L.
Speaker 4 (16:28):
You were there. I know who he is though, and
I actually think he probably could have been their best witness,
expert witness. He's like an auction guru. But but Eril,
you'd have to say how you thought it went my
reado that wasn't yet.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
I think by far he was their best witness, and
and he uh, it was very clear that the judge
found him credible.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
I would say he's.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
The witness that the judge engaged directly with the most
on on both sides.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
What was his How did they use him?
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Uh to explain the like the auction dynamics, like try
they were trying to use him to explain why last
look wasn't always beneficial to Google.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Why Why that's where you can see the bits of
competing advertisers and beat them by a dollar.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yeah, yeah, So they went through each of those kind
of like auction dynamic questions. But I still think that
the DOJ did well on cross at highlighting things that
he didn't bring up. I don't want to like get
too far into the weeds on it, but but.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah, they but the DOJ did a good job at.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Illuminating the things that he just didn't emphasize. Right, They
played some games with a timeline of changes they made
to their product. And it's not that his testimony necessarily
was false, but it was a little bit misleading the
way it presented things. If if you consider the timelines
of the changes that Google implemented, and I think the
(18:06):
DJ did a good job of clearing that up.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
But I do think that this was Google's strongest witness.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, it's it seems like though having one strong witness
is not going to win them this case. If I'm honest,
it doesn't sound like it went well. And I mean,
maybe this is the right time to lost both of you.
What do you think happens?
Speaker 4 (18:38):
I mean in terms of the actual opinion. Yeah, it
didn't you've heard from me. It didn't go it didn't go.
Well there, yeah, they one expert witness actually gained into
the granular detail of auctions and that you know, that
element probably isn't need necessary anyway, because the monopoly power
is clear, and the conflict of me is clear, and
(19:00):
the tying is clear. So you know, depending on on
the actual analysis of a paid witness by Google, is
really a hail mary at that point, it's very I
think it's very rare that expert witness like that can
can swing the case. So I think if, if very much,
the DOJ's case to lose at this point, I mean,
they've they're going to update their findings of fact and
(19:22):
and you know, they still have the advantage of the
judge questioning the credibility of all the Google witnesses from
the deletion of the chats, et cetera. So so then
we just get to remedies. And we've you know, since
we last talked, we've got the schedule for remedies in
search too, so those are going to be happy, you know,
probably shortly after the ad tech remedies.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
So here we go when would those be?
Speaker 4 (19:45):
That hearing is going to be in April, and Judge
Meta said he wants to have his opinion out by
the summertime. So and so in the asset case, the
attach case closing arguments are November, and I would think
that means her opinion probably will be out January. I
would doubt it before the holidays.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
How are you feeling about a real so what do
you think might happen?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
I mean, I agree, I like especially when I think
about like the ad server monopolization claim, the tying claim,
I don't really see a realm in reality that where
the DOJ's claims there don't succeed.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
There's just like, there's so.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Much evidence to prove it, and there's so little evidence
that Google put forward to even try to refute it.
They put all of their eggs in that market definition basket.
And from that perspective, I think, you know, I was
debating in my mind earlier and actually with Tom Blakely
(20:51):
if they should have called the rebuttal witness. But I
do see the value in what they did because they
literally close their rebuttal by saying, okay, what like, what
is the tool that ultimately decides what AD is served,
and he says the AD server, Okay, who's your AD server?
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Google?
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Right?
Speaker 3 (21:14):
So I just I think they ended it perfectly.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
I don't think that there's a way that the AD
server or the tying claims fail. I'm interested to see
what happens with the AD network side of things, because
I think that the DOJ spent the least amount of
time on that.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
But I also don't think it really changes the remedy
very much.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Well, do you think the remedies might be though? Do
you think that they bring like is it even like
are we going to just see the entire thing shattered?
I realized we're all guessing he by the way the
entire Google thing chattered, I mean, I mean that's where
the AD side of Google.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
The adside of Google. I mean, I don't think there's
any way that if Google loses, I don't see there's
any way that's not the remedy, because that's what the
JUST Department said was the appropriate relief and all the
evidence points. Do you know, unless you believe it's a
two sided market that is just more efficient that way,
then there's no other real defense that doesn't you know,
(22:12):
you can't go anywhere else except for break the ad
tech business apart.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
So, and to take a step back, when you say
it's a two sided market, is that what are they
actually arguing that? Like, what is Google's argument in that way?
Is it?
Speaker 1 (22:25):
That?
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Is it just the publishers don't exist.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Yeah, it's a little bit of a messnomer to explain it. Yeah,
it's a because I know there is the argument that
there's publishers and advertisers are on both sides. And that's
actually the DJ's case. This is a legal term for
a two sided market. That and it relates to the
America Express Ohio case and and so yes, yeah, so
(22:53):
you know it actually you know, it stems from the
notion of when you run a I think technically a
debit card through like are you, as the merchant if
I if I get this right, like as a merchant,
if somebody is about to use an American Express card
that costs them more money, is the merchant allowed to say, hey,
if you use your Visa card or whatever other card,
(23:16):
then you won't have to pay me, as you know
you I want to pay as much and can you steer?
And so there's some some legal following out from there
that that leads to an offense.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
So and that argument isn't gonna work for Google though, because.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
That in Google's world, it's a single Yeah, it's one
big thing, like one big contraption, right, that just handles
more efficiently the entire ad marketplace.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
So yeah, as opposed to what it is, which it
sounds like you're paying Google to advertise with Google and
then Google messing with the old shapes that Google exactly
effectively led it. Yeah, exactly what a bizarre I mean,
you two have been there. This feels like a very
bizarre trial, just a peculiar one to have watched because
(24:02):
all these other tech trials, having obviously not been in
court with myself, haven't read a good amount of transcripts
listening listen to various depositions and stuff, even going back
to like the Bill Gates deposition one where he was
asking for like the very minute definitions. They always seem
very cocky. They always seem like they add a bit
pisson vinegar to them. This one they just seem to
(24:22):
be kind of milling about.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Oh no, they were, they're they're. The arrogance is definitely there.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, Like if you talk to anyone
that goes to their secret briefings, they're like, they're so
they appear so confident in their case that they actually
start to confuse the people that have been there watching
the trial about whether they are seeing what they think
they're seeing. But that Google's entire strategy, you know what
(24:48):
I mean? So confidence no matter what they they put
out there.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Yeah, cool, So what do.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
You think about if I can ask Gurriel question? There
was a moment this morning where when Matthew Wheland from
Daily Mail was testifying and they were trying, they were
they were objecting to back and forth to something just
department was asking. But ultimately the judge made a comment
about there's clearly a lot of competition in that market,
(25:16):
and I think she was my read I was she
was talking generally about something and they were all talking
over each other. But like that was the one line
where I was like the judge, it didn't make any
sense in the context of DFP, which is really what
mattered there, and DFP has ninety one percent of the market,
so like it didn't fit. But so I found it
quite like.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
You break that down a little bit, what do you
mean by DFP and what'd.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
You mean publisher at So the publisher ad server, which
Google has.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
The place where it publishes sell their ads.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
Yeah, and Google has ninety one percent of the marketplace
for that software. So that's the that's one of the
three monopolies alleged, is the publisher ad server marketplace. And
and Google has ninety one percent of the market, which
most average person street and definitely any lawyer would say
is monopoly power at ninety one percent.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
And so yeah, there's no way, there's no way that
that judge that the judge was talking about the ad
server market. My read is so it was a chaotic
flurry of objections, right, And if we remember how the
objection started, it was the DOJ wanted to call Wheatland.
Karen Dunn was upset because why is a fact witness
(26:29):
being called to rebut an expert, And they argued about it,
and then finally he's allowed to go on, and then
they asked him the first question, and there's a flurry
of objections again, and then they asked the question about
whether Google whether the ad server market is competitive, and
that's where this objection fest happened.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
And so my understanding is.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
The judge knew that the everything at issue here was
they wanted to use him to rebut Mark Israel Mar
Israel thinks it's all one two sided market. And I
believe that the judge was thought that the question was
about that big market when she said that it was,
it's clear that it's competitive, because remember just it was
(27:15):
like five minutes ago that the judge was saying that
market definition is a core issue in this case, and
it's one that the court is going to need to resolve.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
You know, got it, got it makes sense? Makes sense.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
What a bizarre year year this has been for tech
in general. I mean, as we wrap up this wonderful
series and thank you both for doing this, it does
feel like something has changed with how definitely like society,
but almost all of these judges are looking at the
tech industry. They're not friends anymore. There's no it doesn't
(27:51):
feel like the government is on tech's side anymore.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Well, I think that my rate is that, you know,
the courts are very much just calling balls and strikes,
and I I would applaud this judge. I mean, incredible
that she got through everything in three weeks instead of six.
She clearly was tracking and followed what happened with Judge
Meta's case in DC. She actually referenced today something from
(28:15):
the California case where Google had argued the very opposite
defense as what they were arguing in court today, and
she said that that was very problematic for Google, and
so they'd address it during the final closing argument. So,
you know, they're all paying attention to each other, and
they're calling balls and strikes. And then yes, the PRUS,
you know, the AGS and the Just Department are doing
(28:37):
a masterful job of understanding the you know, the sophistication
of these companies.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, it's it's a fun time to be alive and
reporting on this and you two have done just incredible work.
And I want to thank you on behalf of listeners
as well. You've both been kicking off and checked my ads,
in particular with usv Google Ads, which will be linked
at the end of this episode. You've done just a
phenomenal job here and I I don't know if this
(29:02):
would have been as well covered without you both, actually,
so thank you.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
Thank you, thank you for having us.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
So I'm going to call it there, Ariel work and
people find you.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
You can find me a check my adds dot org.
You can find me at Ariel s Garcia on.
Speaker 4 (29:17):
Twitter, Jason Underscore kent ordigitalcontentnext dot org sometimes called DCN.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
That works for thanks, and you can find me by
googling who ruined Google search. That will bring you to
an article that I wrote thanks to an AI overview,
you've been listening to Better Offline. That's the end of
our coverage for now, but I'll be bringing back both
Ariel and Jason for the closing arguments sometime in November.
Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening to Better Offline.
(29:54):
The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
is Matosowski. You can check out more of his music
and audio project at Mattasowski dot com m A T
T O. S O W s ki dot com. You
can email me at easy at Better offline dot com
or visit Better offline dot com to find more podcast
links and of course my newsletter. I also really recommend
(30:15):
you go to chat dot Where's your heead dot at
to visit the discord, and go to our slash Better
Offline to check out our reddit. Thank you so much
for listening.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
For more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool
zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Al Zone Media.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Hello and welcome to Better Offline. I am, as usual
your host ed Zichrono. Today I'm joined again for the
last episode of our DOJV Google Ads series Ariel Garcia
(00:26):
of Check My Ads and of course Jason Kent of DCN.
Thank you so much for coming. What's happened in this
week's This Saga?
Speaker 1 (00:35):
So this week we had the opportunity to listen to
Google's defense. They I haven't done the tally yet, I
intend to, but the vast majority of witnesses they called
were people that either have been paid or still are
paid by Google.
Speaker 3 (00:53):
So that includes people like.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Current employees, small businesses that get big grants from Google,
and their expert witnesses. The most notable one is doctor
Mark Israel, who is at a consultancy called Compass Lexicon.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
He's there, he was their lead economists.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
So, if you remember, we've talked about how Google is
trying to argue that ad tech is just one big,
two sided market that connects advertisers and impressions.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Not even publishers.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Publicers don't exist, Okay, So that two sided market argument
comes from Mark Israel's work, or it was his expert
report that really defined that argument and.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
For the listener's sake, what is this man? Like? What
does he do for a living?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
Yeah, so that's what the DOJ wanted to know. So apparently.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
He makes eighty percent of his money and spends a
five percent of his time being an expert witness, so
literally getting cool paid to say what people want him
to say cool.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
So is that like a job that anyone could do?
Just wondering, but in all serious this looking up this
wonderful man's He has a PhD in economics from Stanford,
MSc in economics from the University of Wisconsin Madison, so
big ten BOYBA in economics from Illinois Wesleyan University. This
man's job is just having a job. It's just like
(02:32):
existing and saying stuff that people asking, like, come on, man,
you can't do this, Well, I mean you can, and
he does.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
He.
Speaker 4 (02:39):
I think it's worth noting he was the expert witness
for Google at the search trial too that they just lost,
and and he's done like fifty or so different cases.
He's also Albertson's and Kroger, which is playing out in
the grocery store space. So yeah, this is his full
time job.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
Wait, so he's in the Albatsons and Kroger case as well. Yeah, Jesus,
so this man's this man's job is just like kind
of being a sock puppet, but like a really well
paid one.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Your words. But as somebody sitting there listening to him testify,
I guess I would say, and this happens a lot
of time, I think with economists not to be critical
of the whole field. But it wasn't connected to the
real world at all, And so it was like, you know,
an argument that nobody that understands the actual advertising business
would agree with, like, yeah, it's one big, two sided
(03:28):
market that also competes with Reddit and Facebook and all
these other you know, large platforms, as if they're just
directly similar and comparable.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
So, and how did his augument do with the judge?
Speaker 4 (03:43):
I didn't think it did well at all. I mean,
as he was spinning the yarn in the beginning it
I could see where somebody could be convinced that they
didn't really understand the business. But then once the just
Department did their cross, it really fell apart in my mind.
I don't know if if you have a different point
of view.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Yeah, no, I agree with that.
Speaker 1 (04:04):
And you could tell because at one point, when he
was talking about one of the alleged reasonable substitutes that
publishers have, he was basically saying that a publisher that
has a website and sells ads on their website can
just move those ads to their app, right, And so
the judge asks like, well, what if the publisher doesn't
(04:27):
have an app, and he's like, well, then there would
be they would need to build one. She's like, well
that would cost money, no, And he's like, well, yeah,
in that instance, they would need to pay money to
build an app. That was the only and that, like,
that was the simplest pushback point. We're not addressing the
fact that, like the amount of people that end up
on your website versus the amount of readers that will
(04:50):
download an app are not the same. We got to
that today when the DJ called their rebuttal witness. But yeah,
that's the type of flavor that we that we got.
And if the judge was not already skeptical from the direct,
definitely the DOJ absolutely, I literally might. My immediate commentary
was that the DJ mopped the floor with him so so.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
And just to be clear, his argument was, if you
don't like Google's heavy monopoly. You could build your own app.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
That's got yes and that, and it gets more wild,
Like at one point he was saying that if if
a publisher's ad server is is bad, then advertisers might
move money to Facebook. Like these two things have nothing
(05:42):
to do so if the tool a publisher uses to
manage their campaigns as bad, an advertiser might move money
to social media.
Speaker 3 (05:49):
These It was just completely unhinged.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
This man is meant to be smart. That feels like
a dumb guy augment that that doesn't even make technically.
Is this just Google's attempt to just kind of obfiscate
things and try and muddy the waters.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So I think I think I'm speculating, but I think
what he was trying to drive at is that on
some level, a good product on one side has implications
for the other side. It's part of this bigger argument
that they're trying to make for why Google being on
(06:24):
both sides of the market of their alleged you know,
two sided market is good that when they do something
good for advertisers, the knock on effects are good for
publishers and vice versa. What the DOJ points out is
like okay, but that means ostensibly it can't always just
be about the advertisers, right, And we didn't really have
(06:45):
a good answer for that.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
So we're at the end of this trial, though there
are closing arguments in NOVEMBI mentioned before the call. How
did the rest of the last week or so go?
Was it mostly just Google attempting to muddy more like
they come up with new arguments of any kind.
Speaker 4 (07:03):
There's nothing. I didn't hear anything really new, and I
think really the fireworks were mostly today as the just
department brought in one of the publisher witnesses for a rebuttal,
was the only rebuttal witness, and there was a lot
of back and forth about whether or not he was
gonna be able to testify again, but he basically, you
(07:24):
know those arguments that Mark Israel Matthew Wheatland from the
Daily Mail senior executive Daily Mail, and so each of
those arguments that Israel had made, they kind of cleaned
that up, I think the apartment and made it clear
that that wasn't wasn't in the real world, that wasn't
an issue. And but it got to the point then
during when the when Google was doing it's cross where
(07:45):
it got. Really, it's kind of absurd if you were
in the room. I feel like the judge even knew
it was absurd where they were, you know, if he
was cleaning up that that it wasn't a real world
situation that you could just, you know, shut down your
website if things weren't working well with the Google monopoly
and launch an app. And then Google's attorney started to
compare the number of clicks it takes to type in
(08:07):
a website, like literally down to the https colon slash
slash versus downloading an app, and was actually comparing how
much time it takes to do the two different things.
And it was just I could understand how we were
gaining that literal on the last day in the last witness.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
So was the argument the apps are easier to launch
them websites.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
It felt like they were going back to Google's classic
argument of you know, of efficiency and you know, competitions
a click away, and you know, and all these arguments
about how quickly you can do different things. So it
was not working in my opinion.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
So, I mean in Google's world where they can just
kind of like coerce their users and customers to do
whatever they want them to. Maybe that that, maybe that works,
but it doesn't really matter. How If it's the same
amount of clicks for a consumer, for a user to
download an app as it is to go to a website,
no one can force them to download the app, right.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
But yes, I completely agree. It was just ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
It also was like, because she decided to go there,
it kept every time Wheatland went to talk, she had
to cut him off because he was trying.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
To You could tell me she being the judge here.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
No, no, no.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Every time Wheatland went to talk beyond a yes or no,
Google's council needed to cut him off because she probably
realized that he was going to say, well no, Like
he kept saying, that's one way to get to a website,
and obviously, you know, search results would be another one,
you know.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
So it was just a very odd.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
It really does feel and I said this last episode,
it doesn't feel like Google came in with an argument.
I'm astonished because these are meant to For years, we've
seen these companies as these kind of mammoth organizations that
can do what they want. But in front of a judge,
they just seemed kind of pathetic.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I think that the facts were just so not on
their side that they really struggled. There was not one
witness that they called where on cross examination, DJ didn't
manage to surface something that set Google back a little
bit or introduced something new that was bad, you know
(10:27):
what I mean.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
They just they didn't have very much.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
And so that's why their experts, and specifically Mark Israel,
because the other experts that Google called their analysis relied
heavily on Israel's report, right, so it was really hinging
on Israel. I expected that there would be something at least.
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Somewhat compelling there, and when I.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Saw that there was just absolutely nothing there, I mean,
to me, that was the nail on the coffin for
their case.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
It's remarkable. It also kind of suggests that these other
antitrust cases might be similarly chaotic, because you would think that,
I think what is really stunning me, other than the
fact that just kind of incompetent is you'd think they'd
have planned for this, Like Jason, you've been getting you
covered the search trial. Did they have a better argument there?
Speaker 4 (11:31):
They did, and you know, I think their argument there
was you know that they still had kind of a
giant elf in the room that they were spending you know,
upwards of twenty twenty five billion dollars a year for
the search slot. And you know, if they were the
best product out there and consumers, why it naturally then
why they have to pay all that money? That was
the big help in the room. But they at least
(11:53):
could make arguments about exclusionary conduct and a few other
things that they'll try to make in their appeal. I
don't think they're going to win because the appeal goes
to the same as in the same circuit as USB Microsoft,
which it relied on. So but they, you know, it
was more down to illegal arguments and they didn't have
the same issues with deletion of emails and all that
stuff in the same way that came out in this case.
(12:15):
So yeah, I you know, one thing and I can
thinking a lot about is. I mean, as much as
you know they've got, it feels like, you know, almost
every major law firm at their fingertips when they need them,
and experts and paid experts, et cetera. It's a really
complicated chess game when you've got remedies going on in
California from your app store loss, and you've got the
(12:36):
Search case remedies going on in DC and all these
things are you know, dividing executive time within the company,
and you also are trying to manage, you know, your
business at the same time you've got Sundar Forsha going
on TV a couple of nights ago, you know, to
say that you know, everything's all good, right, It's it's
a very complicated chess game no matter who you are.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
And do you think, what do you think these cases
are kind of splitting their attention?
Speaker 4 (13:00):
That would be my I mean, it has to be
at some point, and you you kind of see that
play out in the real world, you know, when you've
got you know, I saw in the Search case. I
think it was like one of the last days where
you had Kent Walker, the chief legal officer at Google,
you know, in the front row and then like literally
move up to the lawyer's table, you know, which was
kind of unusual to try to whisper to some of
(13:22):
the lawyers in real time. So like he's gained involved
right in the actual arguments at the trial as Search
cases weighing down, And I sensed that a little bit today,
Ari L I don't know if you sens this, you
were in the courtroom, but like there was shuffling around
by various Google and and their law firms.
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Folks. You know when you say shuffling around, is he
just handing papers to the Yeah?
Speaker 4 (13:43):
I mean there was like almost many huddles happening, you know,
you know, a borderline close to disturbing the judge. But
you had, you know, three or four people leaning back
and forth talking to each other, and then people running
out of the room and stuff. It was it was
like they were, you know, dealing, They were trying to
escalate and deal with things in real time because things
weren't going.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Well, I'm losing this trial.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
Like their whole team was there today like that. Everyone
knew that today was going to be the last day.
So Google's entire team was there. And I'll also say
we knew it was a big team between like their
associates and their comms people and stuff, but I didn't
know quite how big it was. They they filled like
(14:27):
the entire middle section of the courtroom, which is the
largest section I'd say they have. They had three times
the amount of people there that dooj did. And because
everyone was there, you could see the full extent of
the shuffling. So even someone next to me, all the
way in the back of the room was having you know,
(14:49):
notes scribbled and people were running back and forth to
them handing them notes.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
So it was like it was very obvious that there was.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
An all hands on deck scramble when the when DJ
called their rebuttal witness and the judge decided to allow
it to proceed.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
And what was so scary about this witness? What was
it that that like chilled.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Them that he had the real world experience to knock
down every single one of Mark Israel's wild recommendation.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
And this was the fellow from the Daily Mail, which just.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Correct correct, right.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
So it's like they were just going to go one
by one and be like, you know, if if an
advertiser moves spending to social does that impact your negotiations
with Google?
Speaker 3 (15:39):
No, you know, like they just kind of went one
by one.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
And because the questions, the hypotheticals are so outlandish, Google
knew that he was going to seem confused by the
very question, like like the premise is so backwards that
it would that his sincere confusion would come across, you know.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
So that there is one person I want to bring
up so big on tech, Tom Blakeley over there. He
brought up on Tuesday that there was testimony from a
guy called doctor Paul Milgram, Yes, from Stamford. Now Blakely
seems to think that this was a good a good
day for Google.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Well, yeah, thing, I wasn't there that day. I was
actually up, which is a whole nother, a whole nother story.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
I was up.
Speaker 4 (16:24):
I ram up in New York real quickly for a conference.
Speaker 2 (16:26):
But I think R A. L.
Speaker 4 (16:28):
You were there. I know who he is though, and
I actually think he probably could have been their best witness,
expert witness. He's like an auction guru. But but Eril,
you'd have to say how you thought it went my
reado that wasn't yet.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
I think by far he was their best witness, and
and he uh, it was very clear that the judge
found him credible.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
I would say he's.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
The witness that the judge engaged directly with the most
on on both sides.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
What was his How did they use him?
Speaker 1 (17:05):
Uh to explain the like the auction dynamics, like try
they were trying to use him to explain why last
look wasn't always beneficial to Google.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Why Why that's where you can see the bits of
competing advertisers and beat them by a dollar.
Speaker 3 (17:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Yeah, yeah, So they went through each of those kind
of like auction dynamic questions. But I still think that
the DOJ did well on cross at highlighting things that
he didn't bring up. I don't want to like get
too far into the weeds on it, but but.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
Yeah, they but the DOJ did a good job at.
Speaker 1 (17:45):
Illuminating the things that he just didn't emphasize. Right, They
played some games with a timeline of changes they made
to their product. And it's not that his testimony necessarily
was false, but it was a little bit misleading the
way it presented things. If if you consider the timelines
of the changes that Google implemented, and I think the
(18:06):
DJ did a good job of clearing that up.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
But I do think that this was Google's strongest witness.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
Yeah, it's it seems like though having one strong witness
is not going to win them this case. If I'm honest,
it doesn't sound like it went well. And I mean,
maybe this is the right time to lost both of you.
What do you think happens?
Speaker 4 (18:38):
I mean in terms of the actual opinion. Yeah, it
didn't you've heard from me. It didn't go it didn't go.
Well there, yeah, they one expert witness actually gained into
the granular detail of auctions and that you know, that
element probably isn't need necessary anyway, because the monopoly power
is clear, and the conflict of me is clear, and
(19:00):
the tying is clear. So you know, depending on on
the actual analysis of a paid witness by Google, is
really a hail mary at that point, it's very I
think it's very rare that expert witness like that can
can swing the case. So I think if, if very much,
the DOJ's case to lose at this point, I mean,
they've they're going to update their findings of fact and
(19:22):
and you know, they still have the advantage of the
judge questioning the credibility of all the Google witnesses from
the deletion of the chats, et cetera. So so then
we just get to remedies. And we've you know, since
we last talked, we've got the schedule for remedies in
search too, so those are going to be happy, you know,
probably shortly after the ad tech remedies.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
So here we go when would those be?
Speaker 4 (19:45):
That hearing is going to be in April, and Judge
Meta said he wants to have his opinion out by
the summertime. So and so in the asset case, the
attach case closing arguments are November, and I would think
that means her opinion probably will be out January. I
would doubt it before the holidays.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
How are you feeling about a real so what do
you think might happen?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
I mean, I agree, I like especially when I think
about like the ad server monopolization claim, the tying claim,
I don't really see a realm in reality that where
the DOJ's claims there don't succeed.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
There's just like, there's so.
Speaker 1 (20:30):
Much evidence to prove it, and there's so little evidence
that Google put forward to even try to refute it.
They put all of their eggs in that market definition basket.
And from that perspective, I think, you know, I was
debating in my mind earlier and actually with Tom Blakely
(20:51):
if they should have called the rebuttal witness. But I
do see the value in what they did because they
literally close their rebuttal by saying, okay, what like, what
is the tool that ultimately decides what AD is served,
and he says the AD server, Okay, who's your AD server?
Speaker 3 (21:12):
Google?
Speaker 1 (21:13):
Right?
Speaker 3 (21:14):
So I just I think they ended it perfectly.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
I don't think that there's a way that the AD
server or the tying claims fail. I'm interested to see
what happens with the AD network side of things, because
I think that the DOJ spent the least amount of
time on that.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
But I also don't think it really changes the remedy
very much.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
Well, do you think the remedies might be though? Do
you think that they bring like is it even like
are we going to just see the entire thing shattered?
I realized we're all guessing he by the way the
entire Google thing chattered, I mean, I mean that's where
the AD side of Google.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
The adside of Google. I mean, I don't think there's
any way that if Google loses, I don't see there's
any way that's not the remedy, because that's what the
JUST Department said was the appropriate relief and all the
evidence points. Do you know, unless you believe it's a
two sided market that is just more efficient that way,
then there's no other real defense that doesn't you know,
(22:12):
you can't go anywhere else except for break the ad
tech business apart.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
So, and to take a step back, when you say
it's a two sided market, is that what are they
actually arguing that? Like, what is Google's argument in that way?
Is it?
Speaker 1 (22:25):
That?
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Is it just the publishers don't exist.
Speaker 4 (22:30):
Yeah, it's a little bit of a messnomer to explain it. Yeah,
it's a because I know there is the argument that
there's publishers and advertisers are on both sides. And that's
actually the DJ's case. This is a legal term for
a two sided market. That and it relates to the
America Express Ohio case and and so yes, yeah, so
(22:53):
you know it actually you know, it stems from the
notion of when you run a I think technically a
debit card through like are you, as the merchant if
I if I get this right, like as a merchant,
if somebody is about to use an American Express card
that costs them more money, is the merchant allowed to say, hey,
if you use your Visa card or whatever other card,
(23:16):
then you won't have to pay me, as you know
you I want to pay as much and can you steer?
And so there's some some legal following out from there
that that leads to an offense.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
So and that argument isn't gonna work for Google though, because.
Speaker 4 (23:29):
That in Google's world, it's a single Yeah, it's one
big thing, like one big contraption, right, that just handles
more efficiently the entire ad marketplace.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
So yeah, as opposed to what it is, which it
sounds like you're paying Google to advertise with Google and
then Google messing with the old shapes that Google exactly
effectively led it. Yeah, exactly what a bizarre I mean,
you two have been there. This feels like a very
bizarre trial, just a peculiar one to have watched because
(24:02):
all these other tech trials, having obviously not been in
court with myself, haven't read a good amount of transcripts
listening listen to various depositions and stuff, even going back
to like the Bill Gates deposition one where he was
asking for like the very minute definitions. They always seem
very cocky. They always seem like they add a bit
pisson vinegar to them. This one they just seem to
(24:22):
be kind of milling about.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Oh no, they were, they're they're. The arrogance is definitely there.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
Oh yeah, oh yeah, Like if you talk to anyone
that goes to their secret briefings, they're like, they're so
they appear so confident in their case that they actually
start to confuse the people that have been there watching
the trial about whether they are seeing what they think
they're seeing. But that Google's entire strategy, you know what
(24:48):
I mean? So confidence no matter what they they put
out there.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
Yeah, cool, So what do.
Speaker 4 (24:55):
You think about if I can ask Gurriel question? There
was a moment this morning where when Matthew Wheland from
Daily Mail was testifying and they were trying, they were
they were objecting to back and forth to something just
department was asking. But ultimately the judge made a comment
about there's clearly a lot of competition in that market,
(25:16):
and I think she was my read I was she
was talking generally about something and they were all talking
over each other. But like that was the one line
where I was like the judge, it didn't make any
sense in the context of DFP, which is really what
mattered there, and DFP has ninety one percent of the market,
so like it didn't fit. But so I found it
quite like.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
You break that down a little bit, what do you
mean by DFP and what'd.
Speaker 4 (25:38):
You mean publisher at So the publisher ad server, which
Google has.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
The place where it publishes sell their ads.
Speaker 4 (25:44):
Yeah, and Google has ninety one percent of the marketplace
for that software. So that's the that's one of the
three monopolies alleged, is the publisher ad server marketplace. And
and Google has ninety one percent of the market, which
most average person street and definitely any lawyer would say
is monopoly power at ninety one percent.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
And so yeah, there's no way, there's no way that
that judge that the judge was talking about the ad
server market. My read is so it was a chaotic
flurry of objections, right, And if we remember how the
objection started, it was the DOJ wanted to call Wheatland.
Karen Dunn was upset because why is a fact witness
(26:29):
being called to rebut an expert, And they argued about it,
and then finally he's allowed to go on, and then
they asked him the first question, and there's a flurry
of objections again, and then they asked the question about
whether Google whether the ad server market is competitive, and
that's where this objection fest happened.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
And so my understanding is.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
The judge knew that the everything at issue here was
they wanted to use him to rebut Mark Israel Mar
Israel thinks it's all one two sided market. And I
believe that the judge was thought that the question was
about that big market when she said that it was,
it's clear that it's competitive, because remember just it was
(27:15):
like five minutes ago that the judge was saying that
market definition is a core issue in this case, and
it's one that the court is going to need to resolve.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
You know, got it, got it makes sense? Makes sense.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
What a bizarre year year this has been for tech
in general. I mean, as we wrap up this wonderful
series and thank you both for doing this, it does
feel like something has changed with how definitely like society,
but almost all of these judges are looking at the
tech industry. They're not friends anymore. There's no it doesn't
(27:51):
feel like the government is on tech's side anymore.
Speaker 4 (27:55):
Well, I think that my rate is that, you know,
the courts are very much just calling balls and strikes,
and I I would applaud this judge. I mean, incredible
that she got through everything in three weeks instead of six.
She clearly was tracking and followed what happened with Judge
Meta's case in DC. She actually referenced today something from
(28:15):
the California case where Google had argued the very opposite
defense as what they were arguing in court today, and
she said that that was very problematic for Google, and
so they'd address it during the final closing argument. So,
you know, they're all paying attention to each other, and
they're calling balls and strikes. And then yes, the PRUS,
you know, the AGS and the Just Department are doing
(28:37):
a masterful job of understanding the you know, the sophistication
of these companies.
Speaker 2 (28:41):
Yeah, it's it's a fun time to be alive and
reporting on this and you two have done just incredible work.
And I want to thank you on behalf of listeners
as well. You've both been kicking off and checked my ads,
in particular with usv Google Ads, which will be linked
at the end of this episode. You've done just a
phenomenal job here and I I don't know if this
(29:02):
would have been as well covered without you both, actually,
so thank you.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
Thank you, thank you for having us.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
So I'm going to call it there, Ariel work and
people find you.
Speaker 3 (29:13):
You can find me a check my adds dot org.
You can find me at Ariel s Garcia on.
Speaker 4 (29:17):
Twitter, Jason Underscore kent ordigitalcontentnext dot org sometimes called DCN.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
That works for thanks, and you can find me by
googling who ruined Google search. That will bring you to
an article that I wrote thanks to an AI overview,
you've been listening to Better Offline. That's the end of
our coverage for now, but I'll be bringing back both
Ariel and Jason for the closing arguments sometime in November.
Thank you for listening. Thank you for listening to Better Offline.
(29:54):
The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
is Matosowski. You can check out more of his music
and audio project at Mattasowski dot com m A T
T O. S O W s ki dot com. You
can email me at easy at Better offline dot com
or visit Better offline dot com to find more podcast
links and of course my newsletter. I also really recommend
(30:15):
you go to chat dot Where's your heead dot at
to visit the discord, and go to our slash Better
Offline to check out our reddit. Thank you so much
for listening.
Speaker 3 (30:24):
Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
For more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool
zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Host
Ed Zitron
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.