In a federal antitrust trial, former News Corp programmatic advertising executive Stephanie Layser testified about the difficulties publishers face in breaking away from Google’s advertising tools. Layser, now at AWS, described feeling “held hostage” by Google’s tools due to their overwhelming dominance and lack of viable alternatives.

The testimony is part of the Justice Department’s second antitrust case against Google, accusing the company of monopolizing the ad tech market by tying its products together, making it nearly impossible for competitors to thrive. Google, however, argues that the government is punishing it for success and innovation, maintaining that it is not obligated to help rivals.

Google’s Unified Pricing Rules Draw Criticism

Layser’s frustration centered around Google’s Unified Pricing Rules (UPR), introduced in 2019, which limited publishers’ ability to set higher floor prices for ads sold through Google’s ad exchange, AdX. This change hindered publishers’ efforts to create competition during ad auctions and potentially drive higher prices. Despite raising concerns with Google executives, Layser said no changes were made.

Switching to alternative tools was also deemed impractical. According to Layser, Google’s DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), now known as Google Ad Manager, was the only platform offering access to real-time Google Ads demand, crucial for publishers looking to optimize ad revenue. Although tools like AppNexus (now Xandr, owned by Microsoft) were considered, News Corp concluded that the risk of lost revenue without Google Ads demand was too great.

The Stranglehold of DFP

Despite its widespread use, Layser criticized DFP for being outdated and inefficient, calling it a “25- to 30-year-old piece of technology.” She cited DFP’s lack of innovation and transparency, especially compared to competitors like AppNexus, where publishers could gain more insight into transactions. Layser lamented her inability to maximize revenue due to DFP’s limitations, saying she “felt stuck.”

According to the Department of Justice, Google’s DFP tool holds nearly 90% of the market share in the U.S., with Layser estimating that only a small fraction of publishers don’t use it. This near-universality has led to an industry where many professionals have never worked with any other tool besides Google’s.

Advertisers Also Feeling the Pressure

The court also heard from Jay Friedman, CEO of the Goodway Group, who testified about the challenges advertisers face with Google’s AdX. Friedman revealed that while his company can negotiate fees with other ad exchanges, they’ve never been able to do so with Google, even though AdX charges higher rates. “We were told it wasn’t an option,” Friedman said.

In a prerecorded deposition, Eisar Lipkovitz, a former Google VP of engineering for display and video ads, expressed concerns about the integration of DFP and AdX. He acknowledged a conflict of interest within Google, stating that some internal colleagues made “self-interested arguments” when downplaying the issues. Lipkovitz also noted the lack of alternatives, remarking that running a tool like DFP is a business that “nobody wants.”

As the case unfolds, it sheds light on how Google’s dominance in online ads is affecting both publishers and advertisers, with many feeling trapped by the tech giant’s hold on the market.