Eight states have been joined by nine others in a lawsuit against Google LLC, claiming that the company’s advertising business violates antitrust laws.
In January, a lawsuit was filed alleging that Google utilizes its significant role in the provision of sell-side and buy-side advertising tools to negatively impact market competition. The suit claims that Google elevates the barriers to entry into the market to artificially high levels, leading to the departure of competitors from the advertising technology industry and, in certain cases, discouraging them from entering. Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Washington and West Virginia have joined the lawsuit with California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia.
Related: In A New Filing Google Denies Destroying Evidence In DOJ Antitrust Suit
In a statement, the Department of Justice claimed that Google is monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
“We look forward to litigating this important case alongside our state law enforcement partners to end Google’s long-running monopoly in digital advertising technology markets,” Doha Mekki, principal deputy assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, noted as the additional states joined the lawsuit.
Google spoke out against the lawsuit in January, claiming that the “DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”
Featured News
Rio Tinto to Acquire U.S.-Based Arcadium Lithium in $6.7 Billion Deal
Oct 9, 2024 by
CPI
Biden Administration Warns of Price Gouging Risks Ahead of Hurricane Milton’s Landfall
Oct 9, 2024 by
CPI
Cleveland-Cliffs Clears Regulatory Hurdle in Stelco Acquisition
Oct 9, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Showdown: Google Confronts Threats to Its Business in App Distribution, Search, and Advertising
Oct 9, 2024 by
CPI
X Returns to Brazil After Supreme Court Ruling Clears Path
Oct 9, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh