In re: Google Digital Publisher Antitrust Litigation
Analysis Group was retained on behalf of counsel for Google, its parent company Alphabet, and YouTube, the defendants in antitrust litigation filed by Inform, an online video advertising and content syndication company. Inform alleged that Google strategized ways to overtake it in the online video advertising market, including by not appropriately serving Inform’s ads, manipulating advertising auction outcomes against it, and misleading Inform as to the cause of its declining ad sales. The allegations were part of multidistrict consolidated antitrust lawsuits filed by groups of publishers, advertisers, and newspapers against Google and its online ad technology.
An Analysis Group team led by Managing Principal Chris Borek, Principal Robert Vigil, Vice Presidents John Browning and Gregory Weiss, and Manager Matias Marzani supported academic affiliate Jeffrey Prince, who submitted an expert rebuttal report, testified at deposition, and filed a declaration presenting additional data analyses related to the composition of Inform’s advertising transactions. In response to the plaintiff’s experts’ submissions, Professor Prince opined on the requirements to prove damages, including establishing causation, isolating harm from the alleged conduct, and quantifying harm attributed to the alleged conduct. Professor Prince also evaluated the economic damages calculated by one of Inform’s experts, including analyzing an income approach and a market approach to assessing damages.
A judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Google’s motion for summary judgment on Inform’s antitrust injury claims. Citing Professor Prince’s conclusions that only 1% of Inform’s overall revenue came from Google’s ad exchange, and just 1.3% of Inform’s impressions served through Google’s ad server were filled by Google’s ad exchange, the judge held that Inform “has not pointed to evidence” showing it suffered antitrust injury caused by Google’s conduct in the online video advertising market. In consideration of Professor Prince’s conclusion that the overwhelming majority of Inform’s transactions on Google’s ad server and ad exchange were for video ads – particularly instream video ads – the judge also found that “Inform does not explain how Google’s monopoly power in the ad-tech stack for open-web display ads affects transactions for instream video advertising.”