USA Today and Daily Mail Join Publishers Seeking $3.2 Billion From Google Over Alleged Ad Monopoly

USA TODAY Co. and the Daily Mail and a certified class of about 5,000 US digital publishers can take claims worth more than $3.2 billion (£2.42 billion) against Google to a jury trial after a federal judge rejected the company's main requests for summary judgment.

Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York issued the decision in an 88-page opinion. The publishers allege Google's advertising technology practices reduced their revenues. Google disputes the claims.

The jury will decide whether the alleged conduct caused losses and how much should be awarded.

Publishers Seek More Than $3.2bn

USA TODAY Co. (formerly Gannett) is seeking about $900 million (£680.74 million), with economist Ali Hortacsu estimating damages at $900.77 million (£681.32 million). The Daily Mail, through Associated Newspapers Ltd and Mail Media Inc, is seeking about $600 million (£453.83 million), with Hortacsu putting the figure at $599.96 million (£453.79 million).

The publisher class is seeking $1.72 billion (£1.30 billion) in damages through March 2024, based on estimates by economist Einer Elhauge. The case follows a federal action in Virginia, where Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google had illegally monopolised the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets, DFP and AdX, and had unlawfully tied the two.

Castel gave those findings preclusive effect, meaning Google cannot, subject to any appeal, relitigate the market definitions or basic liability decided there. The New York jury will consider remaining liability questions, antitrust injury, causation and damages.

Google Auction Programmes Face Scrutiny

USA TODAY Co. and the Daily Mail allege that Enhanced Dynamic Allocation gave Google buyers first access to valuable ad space, at lower prices, before rival ad exchanges could bid.

The publishers also allege that Project Bernanke and related programmes paid them less for ads than advertisers were charged, with Google allegedly using the difference to help ads bought through Google Ads win more auctions.

They further claim Minimum Bid to Win and Project Poirot gave Google buyers access to bidding information or changed bids in ways that made rival ad exchanges less likely to win. These claims will be examined at trial.

The judge also threw out some of the publishers' claims under New York consumer protection laws, ruling that the deals involved large, experienced businesses rather than ordinary consumers. Antitrust claims by The Progressive and Inform Inc. were also dismissed.

The court said The Progressive sold nearly all of its ad space through DFP, not AdSense, while Inform had not shown that Google had enough control over the online video ad market.

Overseas Losses Remain in Play

Castel also rejected Google's argument that losses suffered outside the US should not be included. He noted that Google and its parent company, Alphabet, are based in the US and that the alleged conduct was planned and carried out there.

The Daily Mail may seek $383 million (£289.69 million) for losses outside the US, as well as $217 million (£164.13 million) in US losses. USA Today may seek $103 million (£77.91 million) in overseas losses and $798 million (£603.59 million) in US losses.

Google argued that some of the publishers' losses had other causes, including advertisers being reluctant to appear alongside Daily Mail content, Gannett's merger with GateHouse Media and mistakes in placing ads.

Castel rejected those arguments, but left the jury to consider whether the publishers could have reduced their losses by changing settings in Google's advertising tools.