In a notable legal twist, Google has avoided a jury trial over allegations of monopolizing digital advertising by paying $2.3 million to cover potential damages. This decision, announced by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema on Friday, signifies that Google’s payment meets the requirements to address the U.S. government’s claims.
“I am satisfied that the cashier’s check satisfies any damages claim,” Judge Brinkema stated, referencing the expert reports that supported this conclusion.
Shift to Bench Trial
With this payment, Google will face a bench trial—where a judge, not a jury, will decide the case. This change is typical for antitrust cases involving non-monetary demands, which are directly addressed by judges. Google’s payment effectively nullified the need for a jury trial, which the company noted would have been a first in a civil antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department.
The $2,289,751 check was deemed adequate, leading Judge Brinkema to rule out a jury trial. She will oversee the trial set to begin on September 9.
Background of the Lawsuit
The Justice Department and several states filed a lawsuit against Google last year, accusing the tech giant of unlawfully monopolizing the digital advertising market and overcharging users. The lawsuit aims to dismantle Google’s advertising business to promote market competition.
The government’s request for a jury trial was unusual for antitrust cases, which are usually heard by judges. They argued that a jury should determine the damages, citing overcharges in advertising purchased by federal agencies. However, Google’s payment rendered this argument irrelevant.
Dispute Over Damages
The Justice Department opposed Google’s motion to eliminate the jury demand, arguing that the check did not fully cover the claimed damages. The government’s damages expert had estimated a much higher figure, though this amount was redacted in court filings. The government asserted that Google’s offer was not an admission of damages and was aimed at avoiding further liability.
Conversely, Google claimed its payment covered every possible recovery amount based on the government’s expert calculations, including interest and potential treble damages under U.S. antitrust law.
Judge’s Ruling and Future Trial
Judge Brinkema’s decision was based on her finding that Google’s payment exceeded the maximum amount initially sought by the government. She compared receiving the money to obtaining a “wheelbarrow of cash,” underscoring the payment’s unconditional nature, regardless of the outcome of Google’s arguments against a jury trial.
Although the government did not secure higher damages, the lawsuit continues to seek a declaration that Google illegally monopolized the digital advertising market. The complaint calls for the breakup of Google’s advertising business, specifically the divestiture of the Google Ad Manager suite, which includes the publisher ad server (DFP) and the ad exchange (AdX).
Google’s Stance and Government’s Response
Google has consistently denied any wrongdoing, stating that the payment was not an admission of liability. In a statement, the company described the Justice Department’s damages claim as contrived and the case as a meritless attempt to manipulate competition in the industry.
Google argued that antitrust cases are usually tried by judges due to their complex and technical nature. The company accused the federal government of fabricating its damages claim to ensure a jury trial, alleging that the Justice Department had hastily sought out agencies to support its case.
