Craycroft made this suggestion after testifying that potential buyers for AdX from Big Tech or existing ad exchanges could create new competition concerns. Brinkema picked up on this idea, asking, “why is that not a very simple and elegant solution?” Craycroft said it could be, but AdX offers some additional benefits.
Craycroft testified that the government’s remedies proposals are “naive” and “incoherent.” Despite its claims that breaking up Google’s ad tech business would give publishers more freedom, he testified, the DOJ’s proposals would burden them with a new tech tool to manage.
Google advertising executive Tim Craycroft testified that the company had done several internal analyses about potentially divesting part of AdX or even shutting it down altogether. The DOJ is trying to show that Google’s own analyses indicate it would be feasible to spin out the product.
During cross examination, Google attorney Jeannie Rhee walked through a long list of proprietary Google tools and asked Weissman if he found replacements for them outside of Google. Rhee is trying to complicate the picture of how simple Weissman says it would be to move AdX and DFP to another provider, suggesting there are many unknown variables.
That’s how Brinkema characterized a concern that moving the code for Google’s ad tech tools to a new environment could change how well they work. Court began today with the continuation of expert witness Jon Weissman, who says migrating AdX and DFP is technically feasible, and that any new code needed doesn’t need to be identical to Google’s, just equivalent in function.
Distributed systems expert Jonathan Weissman testified that separating AdX and DFP from Google’s infrastructure would not require a huge undertaking like a full rewrite of code. We expect to hear more from Weissman and others about the feasibility of a breakup tomorrow.
Investment banker Paul Crisci evaluated whether AdX and DFP would be attractive assets for potential buyers if Google is forced to sell them. Crisci testified that at least in an initial assessment, plenty of companies in ad tech and adjacent markets would likely be interested in buying them.
During testimony from the DOJ’s expert economic witness Robin Lee, Judge Brinkema asked how necessary a forced sale of Google’s ad tech products would be if we assumed Google would faithfully follow all the restrictions on its behavior. Lee said if that were the case, behavioral restrictions could be sufficient but only if they could capture all problematic behavior upfront, and if deviations could be quickly detected.
I’m back at court for the third day of the government’s case-in-chief. The judge made clear she wants to hear from more technical witnesses who can tell her about how the different proposals would work.
Brinkema was getting tired of hearing from industry witnesses by the end of Tuesday, and told the parties she’s looking to home in on the technical feasibility of a break up and other remedies. The government said it would aim to cut to its technical witnesses when court resumes Wednesday.