How Google’s 20% Cut Is Like Paying for a Penthouse and Getting a Broom Closet

So, here we are, folks. Google, the tech behemoth that knows more about your browsing habits than your mom, is in the courtroom again. And this time, it’s not just for some regulatory wrist slap or to pay a fine that barely dents their Scrooge McDuck-level vaults. No, this time, Uncle Sam is out for blood. The DOJ is accusing Google of playing Monopoly—not the fun family game that ruins Thanksgivings, but the kind that allegedly turns the online ad world into their personal fiefdom. Picture Google as the Godfather of ad tech, sitting back in a dimly lit room, stroking a digital cat while everyone else in the industry trembles in fear. And the Department of Justice? Well, they’re trying to break into that room and flip the table.

The case is as juicy as a prime-cut steak, and no one is walking away unscathed. In one corner, you’ve got the DOJ, painting a picture of Google as the ultimate puppeteer, pulling all the strings so that every ad dollar, every bid, every click, leads back to its massive ad empire. In the other corner, you’ve got Google, slicker than a used car salesman at a Sunday service, insisting that everything they’ve done is just really good business. And by "really good," they mean the kind of good that makes everyone else in the room wonder why they even bothered showing up.

Monopoly or Business Genius? The DOJ and Google’s Battle of Narratives

Let’s start with the obvious. The DOJ isn't pulling any punches. They’ve spent the first couple weeks of this antitrust trial laying out a case that makes Google look less like a scrappy Silicon Valley innovator and more like a black hole that’s slowly sucked the life out of the ad tech universe. According to them, Google has orchestrated an ad empire that works like an all-consuming vortex—once you’re in, there’s no escaping. They’ve bought up competitors, tied their products together like a Gordian knot, and made sure that every online ad transaction ultimately lines their pockets. It’s the corporate equivalent of being stuck in a casino where the house always wins, except the casino is also selling your data to the highest bidder.

To drive the point home, the DOJ has paraded a series of witnesses, from publishers to ad execs, who’ve all taken the stand to air their grievances. It’s like a public therapy session for anyone who’s ever tried to do business with Google and came away feeling like they’d just been hustled by a smooth-talking magician. Julia Tarver Wood, one of the DOJ's top litigators, put it in plain terms: "The rules are set so that all roads lead back to Google." In other words, Google isn’t just playing the game—they’re the ones writing the rulebook.

Google: The Godfather of Ad Tech, But With Way More Nerds

And that brings us to the heart of the DOJ’s case. They argue that Google has turned the ad tech stack—everything from publisher tools to advertiser tools to the actual exchanges where ads are bought and sold—into their personal playground. Through a series of acquisitions, most notably DoubleClick, Google essentially built a walled garden where publishers and advertisers are forced to play nice if they want to stay in business. Want to sell ad space? Better use Google’s DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), because almost everyone else does. Want to buy ad space? You’ll probably be doing it through Google’s AdX exchange. Oh, and by the way, if you’re thinking about trying a competitor, good luck with that. Publishers who dared to break away from DFP quickly realized that without access to Google’s AdX, they were basically playing digital solitaire.

The DOJ has a laundry list of complaints, but one of the most damning is that Google’s dominance has led to what they call “clunkier” tools and higher prices for customers. It’s like being forced to drive a car with square wheels because the manufacturer decided it didn’t need to innovate anymore. Stephanie Layser, a former News Corp executive, testified that DFP is slow, outdated, and about as fun to use as a fax machine in 2024. 

But here’s the kicker: it doesn’t matter, because no one’s willing to leave Google’s ad ecosystem. Why? Because rejecting DFP means losing access to Google’s AdX, which is like throwing away your map in the middle of the desert—you’re just not going to make it.

Prebid: The Open-Source Thorn in Google’s Side

Now, let’s talk about Prebid.org, a name that’s popped up a few times in the trial. Prebid is essentially an open-source platform designed to make ad exchanges a little less one-sided by allowing multiple ad buyers to bid on ad space at the same time—kind of like an auction house where you’re not sure if Google is lurking behind the curtain, peeking at everyone else’s bids. It’s the scrappy underdog trying to keep things competitive in a world where Google’s already bought up the entire auction house, the paddles, and probably the auctioneer too.

But here’s where it gets interesting: Prebid was almost handed off to the IAB Tech Lab, the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s tech arm. Except, as Brian O’Kelley, one of Prebid’s founders, revealed in a video deposition, Google wasn’t having it. Google, which just so happens to be the IAB’s biggest financial backer, made it very clear they did not want the IAB to take over Prebid. 

In fact, O’Kelley testified that Google was “vehemently opposed” to the idea. It’s like being at a board meeting where the biggest shareholder suddenly pipes up and says, “Actually, no. Let’s not do that thing that would let everyone compete on a level playing field.”

Google’s "Clunky" Tech: Like an 80s Station Wagon, But You Still Have to Use It

Let’s get one thing straight—Google’s ad tech isn’t the shiny, well-oiled machine it once was. It’s more like an old station wagon from the 80s: slow to start, kind of embarrassing to be seen in, but absolutely essential because it’s the only car that’ll take you where you need to go. Witness after witness at the trial described Google’s ad server, DFP, as slow and cumbersome. But despite these complaints, no one’s willing to jump ship because Google’s tied DFP to its massive AdX exchange. And if you leave AdX, well, it’s like cutting off your own oxygen supply.

James Avery, the CEO of Kevel, testified that Google’s DFP is “pretty much a foregone conclusion” for most media outlets. It’s like showing up to a party and realizing that everyone’s already drinking the same cheap beer—sure, it’s not great, but what are you going to do? Bring your own?

The DOJ’s witnesses argued that this kind of product tying—where you can’t use one thing without the other—is a major reason why Google’s been able to maintain its stranglehold on the industry. Even companies like Disney, which have the money and resources to develop their own ad tools, end up stuck using Google’s system because the alternatives just don’t have the same access to advertisers. It’s like trying to open your own pizza shop, but Google’s the only supplier with cheese, dough, and tomato sauce, and they’re only going to sell it to you if you use their ovens, their recipe, and probably wear their uniforms too.

“Irrationally High Rent”: Google’s 20% Cut—Because Why Settle for Less?

Now, let’s talk money. Specifically, the money Google takes from every ad dollar that flows through its exchange. The DOJ has been quick to point out that Google’s ad exchange, AdX, charges a 20% fee on every transaction, which is about double what the competition charges. But here’s the kicker—Google’s own internal documents show that even they think the 20% cut is a bit much. Chris LaSala, a former Google executive, called the fee “irrationally high rent” in internal company discussions. It’s like a landlord who knows the rent is too high, but they’re still cashing those checks every month because, hey, what are you going to do? Move?

This 20% cut is a prime example of what the DOJ calls “middleman” fees. You’ve got ad exchanges, ad servers, and all these other layers that take a piece of the pie before it even gets to publishers. And what’s left for the actual creators of content? Not much. Google, of course, isn’t too eager to lower that cut because, according to internal documents, doing so would “risk more platform competition.” Translation: “We like things just the way they are, thank you very much.”

The Data Advantage: Google’s Secret Weapon

Let’s not forget about the real crown jewel of Google’s empire—data. Google has data on over 2 billion users. That’s right, billion, with a “b.” And that data is what makes Google’s ad empire so powerful. Witnesses at the trial argued that Google’s access to user data gives them an unfair advantage in the ad tech game. It’s like playing poker with someone who knows all your cards and still manages to convince you to bet against them.

Jed Dederick from The Trade Desk testified that Google’s advantage comes down to one simple fact: their access to user data is unparalleled. They know who you are, what you’re buying, and probably even what kind of pizza you ordered last Friday night. And because of that, they can offer advertisers the best rates, which keeps publishers locked into their system. It’s like trying to compete in a race where Google’s the only one with a map, a GPS, and a rocket-powered car.

What’s Next? The Trial Isn’t Over Yet

So, where does this all leave us? Google’s lawyers are furiously defending the company’s actions as nothing more than smart business moves. They’ve brought in their own expert witnesses, like economist Mark Israel, who testified that the DOJ’s definition of the ad market is too narrow and that Google’s market share is actually only around 10% if you consider things like social media and mobile ads. They’re trying to argue that the ad world is much bigger than the DOJ claims, and Google’s just one player in a much larger game.

But the DOJ isn’t buying it. They’re set to make their closing arguments soon, and Judge Leonie Brinkema is expected to issue a ruling by the end of the year. If the DOJ wins, it could mean major changes for Google’s ad empire.

 Maybe they’ll be forced to spin off parts of their business, or maybe they’ll face tighter regulations. Or maybe, just maybe, Google will walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist and keep doing what they’ve always done—dominate.

Either way, one thing’s for sure: this trial is shaping up to be the tech world’s version of The Godfather, with Google playing both Michael and Vito Corleone, and the rest of us just trying to figure out how to stay out of the line of fire. 

Stay tuned.

DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE ON LINKEDIN