The Canadian Competition Bureau has published a statement on Thursday [28 November 2024], announcing its decision to sue Alphabet’s Google over its anti-competitive conduct in online advertising.
Following an “extensive”[1] investigation, the Bureau announced that it had filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal seeking an order, among other remedies, to force Google to sell two of it’s Ad Tech tools. This cases sheds light, once again, on Google’s abuses of its dominant position to exclude competitors by entrenching itself at the center.
The Bureau claims that Google, as the stronger ad tech stack in the country, has achieved this design through a series of calculated decisions through the years. It states that Google has illegally linked two advertising tools together to uphold market supremacy, ultimately favouring its own tools to distort ad auctioning.[2]
The Bureau, by filing its order, has put pressure on the Tribunal to order Google to sell two of its ad tech tools, namely its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), and its ad exchange (AdX). It also directs “Google to pay an administrative monetary penalty equal to three times the value of the benefit derived from Google’s anti-competitive practices or if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of Google’s worldwide gross revenues”.[3] The underlying purpose of such action is the promotion of compliance by BigTech with Canada’s competition law’s enforcement.
The Big Tech giant now has 45 days to file its response to the Tribunal.[4]
This case comes after the United States (US) Department of Justice’s closing arguments last week, which illustrated that Google has monopolised the publishers advertisement servers market and advertiser ad networks. Whilst Google held that the US government has solely focused on a narrow slice of the online market and has not taken into consideration the aggressive competition, it seems clear that cases against the dominant position by the BigTech giant are on the rise[5].
Concurring with the DOJ, it is clear to us that Google should be prevented from implementing self-preferencing conduct.[6] Supporting this approach, MOW wants to highlight that it is also in accordance with both the regulatory approach of the United Kingdom (“UK”) and Europe (“EU”). The formal “Decision to Accept Commitments Offered by Google in Relation to its Privacy Sandbox Proposals”[7] issued by the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) in the UK in 2022, highlighted the watchdog’s concerns over Google’s distortion of competition through self-preferencing its own advertising products and services, owned and operated by Google’s ad inventory. Similarly, in the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) judgment[8] in the Google Shopping Case, the ECJ upheld the European Commission’s (“EC”) decision[9] that Google, together with its parent company Alphabet, had engaged in self-preferencing behavior. Favouring its own shopping service over competitors services in general Google search had, once again, abused its dominant position, ultimately breaching EU antitrust law (Article 102 TFEU).
In all, there clearly is a growing trend of scrutiny towards Google’s abuses of its market dominance. It is fundamental for regulatory bodies worldwide, such as those in the UK, EU, US, and Canada, to repeatedly investigate practices by BigTech giants on the open digital advertisement market. The ultimate goal of this being, and maintaining, high levels of fair competition and innovation, as well as protecting consumers and publishers.
[1] Competition Bureau sues Google for anti-competitive conduct in online advertising in Canada – Canada.ca
[2] Canada’s antitrust watchdog sues Google – BBC News
[3] https://www.canada.ca/en/competition-bureau/news/2024/11/backgrounder-competition-bureau-sues-google-for-anti-competitive-conduct-in-online-advertising-in-canada.html
[4] Canada’s antitrust watchdog sues Google – BBC News
[5] Currently, alongside the trial by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the Ad Tech case in front of Judge Brinkema, the DOJ has recently also presented its findings of proposed remedies for Google to sell off Chrome as a result of Judge Mehta’s findings of Google’s monopoly over Search and Search Advertising in the US – Google remedies filing.pdf.
[6] Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM,
[7] Case 50972, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e077f7881c975/Google_Sandbox_.pdf
[8] Case C‑48/22 P, https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf
[9] Case AT.39740, https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39740/39740_14996_3.pdf