The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has drawn UK advertisers and media platforms to its ‘provisional assessment’ scrutinising Google’s practices.
Published on 6 September, the CMA disclosed a series of ‘provisional objections’ regarding Google’s policies and practices favouring its ad-tech solutions.
On 6 September, the CMA published a series of ‘provisional objections’ about Google’s policies and practices, which favour its ad-tech solutions.
Due for a further investigation, the CMA suspects that “Google may have broken competition law by using its dominance to favour its own ad tech services in open-display advertising.”
Of significance to UK advertising, “the provisional findings relate to how Google ‘self-preferences’ its own ad exchange – harming competition and, as a result, advertisers and publishers.”
The CMA investigations draw parallel concerns to ongoing inquiries conducted by the US Department of Justice and EU competition authorities on the dominance of Google’s ad tech solutions over rivals and its impact on competitive practices related to fair use, cost, and impeding alternative services.
As noted, “The CMA is concerned that Google is actively using its dominance in this sector to prefer its own services. Google disadvantages competitors and prevents them from competing on a level playing field to provide publishers and advertisers with a better, more competitive service that supports growth in their business.”
The CMA’s investigation is exclusively focused on determining whether Google’s current ad-tech framework for publisher ad servers, ad buying tools, and ad exchanges is anti-competitive by favouring its own solutions of DoubleClick, Google Ads, and the AdX exchange.
CMA probes Google on abusive adtech practices stifling competition
Fair pricing is a concern, as the CMA notes that “AdX is where Google charges its highest fees in the ad tech stack, approximately 20% of the bid amount.”
The structure of Google’s ad-tech solution is provisionally determined as ‘self-preferencing’, as it allegedly provides AdX with preferential access to advertisers using Google Ads, allowing it to manipulate advertiser bids to appear higher in AdX’s auctions.
The CMA has provisionally determined that Google’s ad-tech solution ‘self-preferences’ by giving AdX preferential access to advertisers using Google Ads, allowing it to manipulate advertiser bids to appear higher in AdX’s auctions.
“The CMA has provisionally found that, since at least 2015, Google has abused its dominant position through the operation of both its buying tools and publisher ad server in order to strengthen AdX’s market position and to protect AdX from competition from other exchanges.”
The CMA has found that, since at least 2015, Google has abused its dominant position by operating both its buying tools and publisher ad server to strengthen AdX’s market position and protect it from competition.
The investigation will determine whether Google has engineered an abusive structure for ad-tech rivals, in which Google benefits from providing AdX with exclusive or preferential access to advertisers using Google Ads, manipulating bids to appear higher in AdX’s auctions compared to rival exchanges, and allowing AdX to bid first in auctions run by its own publisher ad server.
The investigation will assess whether Google has engineered an abusive ad-tech structure, benefiting AdX by giving it exclusive or preferential access to advertisers using Google Ads, manipulating bids to appear higher in AdX’s auctions, and allowing AdX to bid first in auctions run by its own publisher ad server.
As it stands, the CMA has provisionally found that this anti-competitive conduct is ongoing. The CMA is therefore considering what may be required to ensure that Google ceases the anti-competitive practices, and that Google does not engage in similar practices in the future.
The CMA has found that Google’s anti-competitive conduct is ongoing.
Google vs DOJ
This week, the DOJ will begin its hearings against Google, challenging the web giant’s advertising practices and levelling the group with accusations of monopolising the digital ad market to the detriment of competition, particularly harming news publishers.
The trial forms part of the Biden administration’s broader effort to curtail the power of ‘big tech’ dominance on advertising and marketing, hindering competition and innovation in wider markets.
The case follows an earlier ruling in August where a federal judge determined that Google’s dominance in online search violates US competition law, a decision Google immediately appealed.
Google denies the allegations – stating that it has never impeded alternative services from being used by advertisers. Its defence claims that individual preferences are granted to each advertiser regarding how they develop their marketing campaigns.
The tech giant notes that its advertising systems and tech tools are designed to align with secondary services, helping advertisers optimise and commercialise campaigns.
Google further questioned its position of ‘market dominance’, outlining that US critics had only accounted for its leadership in search and display advertising, and not other digital mediums such as social media, apps, online streaming, and video platforms.
Tech observers are closely monitoring developments as to “Who will come out on top?”. The DOJ has lined up testimonies from a range of expert witnesses, including current and former Google employees, executives from top publishers like News Corp and Gannett, and industry experts.
Google seeks definitive assessment
Google is reported to seek a definitive assessment of its advertising practices to avoid the costly restructuring of its ad-tech solutions for individual markets, a scenario the tech giant wants to avoid.
In 2021, France’s competition authority fined Google €220m for abusing antitrust laws, in which the company was ordered to adopt technical changes to allow more transparency and fair competition for third-party ad exchanges.
France’s decision was deemed significant as Google agreed to the ruling without contest, setting a precedent for similar global investigations.
