US DOJ Sues Google for Anticompetitive Conduct in Advertising Practices

The U.S. Department of Justice has brought a competition suit against Google concerning its internet advertising practices.  The DOJ press release states:

Today, the Justice Department, along with the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing multiple digital advertising technology products in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the complaint alleges that Google monopolizes key digital advertising technologies, collectively referred to as the “ad tech stack,” that website publishers depend on to sell ads and that advertisers rely on to buy ads and reach potential customers. Website publishers use ad tech tools to generate advertising revenue that supports the creation and maintenance of a vibrant open web, providing the public with unprecedented access to ideas, artistic expression, information, goods, and services. Through this monopolization lawsuit, the Justice Department and state Attorneys General seek to restore competition in these important markets and obtain equitable and monetary relief on behalf of the American public.

As alleged in the complaint, over the past 15 years, Google has engaged in a course of anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct that consisted of neutralizing or eliminating ad tech competitors through acquisitions; wielding its dominance across digital advertising markets to force more publishers and advertisers to use its products; and thwarting the ability to use competing products. In doing so, Google cemented its dominance in tools relied on by website publishers and online advertisers, as well as the digital advertising exchange that runs ad auctions.

“Today’s complaint alleges that Google has used anticompetitive, exclusionary, and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “No matter the industry and no matter the company, the Justice Department will vigorously enforce our antitrust laws to protect consumers, safeguard competition, and ensure economic fairness and opportunity for all.”

“The complaint filed today alleges a pervasive and systemic pattern of misconduct through which Google sought to consolidate market power and stave off free-market competition,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco. “In pursuit of outsized profits, Google has caused great harm to online publishers and advertisers and American consumers. This lawsuit marks an important milestone in the Department’s efforts to hold big technology companies accountable for violations of the antitrust laws.”

“The Department’s landmark action against Google underscores our commitment to fighting the abuse of market power,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. “We allege that Google has captured publishers’ revenue for its own profits and punished publishers who sought out alternatives. Those actions have weakened the free and open internet and increased advertising costs for businesses and for the United States government, including for our military.”

“Today’s lawsuit seeks to hold Google to account for its longstanding monopolies in digital advertising technologies that content creators use to sell ads and advertisers use to buy ads on the open internet,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Our complaint sets forth detailed allegations explaining how Google engaged in 15 years of sustained conduct that had — and continues to have — the effect of driving out rivals, diminishing competition, inflating advertising costs, reducing revenues for news publishers and content creators, snuffing out innovation, and harming the exchange of information and ideas in the public sphere.”

Google now controls the digital tool that nearly every major website publisher uses to sell ads on their websites (publisher ad server); it controls the dominant advertiser tool that helps millions of large and small advertisers buy ad inventory (advertiser ad network); and it controls the largest advertising exchange (ad exchange), a technology that runs real-time auctions to match buyers and sellers of online advertising.

. . . [Image removed] . . .

Google’s anticompetitive conduct has included:

• Acquiring Competitors: Engaging in a pattern of acquisitions to obtain control over key digital advertising tools used by website publishers to sell advertising space;
• Forcing Adoption of Google’s Tools: Locking in website publishers to its newly-acquired tools by restricting its unique, must-have advertiser demand to its ad exchange, and in turn, conditioning effective real-time access to its ad exchange on the use of its publisher ad server;
• Distorting Auction Competition: Limiting real-time bidding on publisher inventory to its ad exchange, and impeding rival ad exchanges’ ability to compete on the same terms as Google’s ad exchange; and
• Auction Manipulation: Manipulating auction mechanics across several of its products to insulate Google from competition, deprive rivals of scale, and halt the rise of rival technologies.

As a result of its illegal monopoly, and by its own estimates, Google pockets on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products; for some transactions and for certain publishers and advertisers, it takes far more. Google’s anticompetitive conduct has suppressed alternative technologies, hindering their adoption by publishers, advertisers, and rivals.

The Sherman Act embodies America’s enduring commitment to the competitive process and economic liberty. For over a century, the Department has enforced the antitrust laws against unlawful monopolists to unfetter markets and restore competition. To redress Google’s anticompetitive conduct, the Department seeks both equitable relief on behalf of the American public as well as treble damages for losses sustained by federal government agencies that overpaid for web display advertising. This enforcement action marks the first monopolization case in approximately half a century in which the Department has sought damages for a civil antitrust violation.

In 2020, the Justice Department filed a civil antitrust suit against Google for monopolizing search and search advertising, which are different markets from the digital advertising technology markets at issue in the lawsuit filed today. The Google search litigation is scheduled for trial in September 2023.

Google is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a headquarters in Mountain View, California. Google’s global network business generated approximately $31.7 billion in revenues in 2021. Google is owned by Alphabet Inc., a publicly traded company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and headquartered in Mountain View, California.

Bipartisan Letter from U.S. Senators on Drug Patent Thickets

In June, U.S. Senators Leahy (Democrat) and Cornyn (Republican) (and others) sent a letter to the United States Patent and Trademark Office requesting that the USPTO review practices concerning granting “an excessive” amount of patents on pharmaceuticals, such as biologics, that may be driving up drug pricing costs. 

The press release concerning the letter states:

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) led a bipartisan letter Wednesday asking the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to address an issue that is a significant cause of soaring drug prices.  Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Mike Braun (R-IN) also joined the letter.

The senators explained that drug companies and other large companies sometimes artificially extend the period in which they can charge high prices by filing many patents on nearly the same invention, creating a so-called patent thicket of dozens of patents on a single drug.  Those thickets make any challenge to the patents, or to the drug companies’ pricing of the covered drug, nearly impossible.  Because of the exorbitant cost of taking on each of the patents in these patent thickets, generic manufacturers are impeded from entering the market, hurting competition and raising prices for American consumers.  The secondary patents, which are similar to the originals, often receive less scrutiny from the Patent Office but have an outsized effect on everyday Americans who struggle to afford expensive medication.

Leahy believes the Patent Office has the ability to address this abusive practice, and he is asking the agency to take action to rein in this misuse of the patent system.  The letter requests that the Patent Office look into specific ideas for curbing the abuse and “take regulatory steps to improve patent quality and eliminate large collections of patents on a single invention.”  The Patent Act clearly states an inventor may obtain a single patent for a single invention, not dozens.  The senators believe the Patent Office can and should stop these large companies from undermining the patent system, obstructing appropriate competition, stifling innovation, and hurting Americans, who end up paying for all of this at the pharmacy.

The letter contains several ideas for the USPTO and the public to consider concerning future potential rule-making:

1. Terminal disclaimers, allowed under 37 C.F.R. 1.321(d), allow applicants to receive patents that are obvious variations of each other as long as the expiration dates match. How would eliminating terminal disclaimers, thus prohibiting patents that are obvious variations of each other, affect patent prosecution strategies and patent quality overall?

2. Currently, patents tied together with a terminal disclaimer after an obviousness-type double patent rejection must be separately challenged on validity grounds. However, if these patents are obvious variations of each other, should the filing of a terminal disclaimer be an admission of obviousness? And if so, would these patents, when their validity is challenged after issuance, stand and fall together?

3. Should the USPTO require a second look, by a team of patent quality specialists, before issuing a continuation patent on a first office action, with special emphasis on whether the claims satisfy the written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and whether the claims do not cover the same invention as a related application?

4. Should there be heightened examination requirements for continuation patents, 2 to ensure that minor modifications do not receive second or subsequent patents?

5. The Patent Act requires the USPTO Director to set a “time during the pendency of the [original] application” in which continuation status may be filed. Currently there is no time limit relative to the original application. Can the USPTO implement a rule change that requires any continuation application to be filed within a set time frame of the ultimate parent application? What is the appropriate timeframe after the applicant files an application before the applicant should know what types of inventions the patent will actually cover? Would a benchmark (e.g., within six months of the first office action on the earliest application in a family) be preferable to a specific deadline (e.g., one year after the earliest application in a family)?

6. The USPTO has fee-setting authority and has set fees for filing, search, and examination of applications below the actual costs of carrying out these activities, while maintenance fees for issued patents are above the actual cost. If the up-front fees reflected the actual cost of obtaining a patent, would this increase patent quality by discouraging filing of patents unlikely to succeed? Similarly, if fees for continuation applications were increased above the initial filing fees, would examination be more thorough and would applicants be less likely to use continuations to cover, for example, inventions that are obvious variations of each other?

Proposed Act on Curbing Anticompetitive Conduct in the United States

On March 10, 2020, former Presidential Candidate and Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced legislation designed to address abuses of market power by basically making it easier to prove violations of the antitrust laws.  The Press Release states, in part: 

The Anticompetitive Exclusionary Conduct Prevention Act would deter anticompetitive abuses that harm consumers and innovation

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, introduced new legislation today to deter anticompetitive abuses that distort the competitive process and harm consumers, innovation, and new business formation. The Anticompetitive Exclusionary Conduct Prevention Act prohibits anticompetitive exclusionary conduct that risks harm to the competitive process. It also makes reforms to improve antitrust enforcement across the board. The bill was cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Cory Booker (D-NJ).

“We have a major monopoly problem in this country, which harms consumers and threatens free and fair competition across our economy. Companies need to be put on notice that exclusionary behavior that threatens competition cannot continue,” Klobuchar said. “Our legislation will deter anticompetitive abuses, helping to protect the competitive markets that are critical to ensuring fair prices for products and services, spurring innovation, and preserving opportunity for American entrepreneurs.”

Today’s economy – including key sectors like online commerce, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture – is characterized by growing market concentration and market power. Harmful exclusionary practices by powerful companies threaten free and fair competition, as decades of federal court decisions have chilled enforcement under existing laws. As a result, U.S. enforcement against the anticompetitive conduct of powerful firms has lagged behind efforts in other countries, creating an increased danger of our markets becoming less competitive and of our economy becoming less prosperous.     

Overview Anticompetitive Exclusionary Conduct Prevention Act of 2019:

KEY PROVISIONS

1. Prohibit Anticompetitive Exclusionary Conduct: Amends the Clayton Antitrust Act to prohibit “exclusionary conduct” that presents an “appreciable risk of harming competition.”

1.       Shifts the Burden of Proof so that powerful companies that have a market share of greater than 50% or that otherwise have substantial market power would have to prove that their exclusionary conduct in the markets they dominate does not present an “appreciable risk of harming competition.”

2.       Allows DOJ and FTC to seek substantial civil penalties for violations of up to 15% of total U.S. revenues or 30% of the affected U.S. revenues in addition to other remedies available under the Clayton Act.

2. Eliminate Unnecessary “Market Definition” Requirements: Courts often require claimants to prove a relevant market to establish liability under the antitrust laws, even in the face of clear evidence of competitive harm. The bill clarifies that the antitrust laws do not require definition of a relevant market, unless the statutory language explicitly requires it to resolve the case. 
3. Prevent Courts from Improperly Implying Antitrust Immunities: Courts have implied immunity from the antitrust laws for certain conduct based on the existence of federal regulation, in certain circumstances ignoring statutory savings clauses passed by Congress. This bill limits the ability of courts to imply antitrust immunity for regulated conduct. 

The legislation has the support of leading national consumer welfare and antitrust policy organizations American Antitrust Institute, Consumer Reports, and Public Knowledge.

“AAI supports Senator Klobuchar’s bill to strengthen U.S. law to limit harmful conduct by dominant firms -an area of antitrust that has been largely unenforced for decades,” said Diana L. Moss, President, American Antitrust Institute. “The bill will set forth clear, strong, and needed criteria for policing conduct that is designed to drive rivals from markets. It should garner broad bi-partisan support from members of Congress who seek to protect our markets, competition, consumers, and workers.”

"Senator Klobuchar's bill addresses a key shortcoming in our law. Current antitrust law doesn't apply to a company until it already has a monopoly, or is on the verge of one -even when it has enough market power to sabotage the competitive process,” said George Slover, Senior Policy Counsel, Consumer Reports. “This targeted, measured bill would move the line where it needs to be to address the kinds of anticompetitive abuse we are seeing too much of in today's marketplace. This is particularly important as commerce and communications increasingly take place online, with dominant platforms presenting new challenges to making sure we have a competitive marketplace that works for consumers and for all who seek to reach them." 

“For far too long, antitrust enforcers have been fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. This legislation will revitalize antitrust enforcement in exclusionary conduct cases by sharpening the tools of our antitrust agencies,” said Charlotte Slaiman, Competition Policy Director at Public Knowledge. “We commend this effort to address the problem of exclusionary conduct to ensure these competitive harms do not escape scrutiny.”

The full press release is available, here.  The full proposed legislation is available, here.