What the US DOJ antitrust ruling on Google means for marketing attribution

The announcement that the DOJ (Department of Justice) is making recommendations to the effect that Google should be made to sell off its Chrome browser and break up its existing technology infrastructure has captured the headlines recently. But what is the background behind the decision and what does it mean for marketers who are already re-assessing their reliance on Google in light of the ongoing saga around third party cookies?

Here we consider:

• What the DOJ is proposing in practice
• Why the DOJ concerns are the tip of the iceberg for Google
• Why the regulators are taking this type of action against Google now
• How marketers are looking at alternatives to Google’s inhouse measurement solutions
• How Corvidae can help marketers sidestep Google related concerns

What the DOJ is proposing in practice

Before we dig into the implications of the DOJ ruling and recommendations on Google’s practices it is worth pointing out that the case has been some time in the making. The original antitrust suit brought by the DOJ against Google in October 2020 focused on how the search and advertising giant was “unlawfully maintaining monopolies in the markets for general search services, search advertising, and general search text advertising in the United States through anticompetitive and exclusionary practices” (Complaint by DOJ  against Google October 2020).

If you are interested in some of the detail of the hearings it makes for a fascinating read here – not least the fact that it was company policy to delete chat histories which has made the discovery process in the case more difficult!

So, the key proposals in the ruling are:

• forcing Google to sell off its Chrome browser including placing restrictions on browser market re-entry for 5 years to try and foster real competition in the space
• similarly, pressure for Google to sell Android (or as a minimum stopping Android phones giving preference to Google Search)
• prohibiting Google from signing the type of restrictive contracts with key market players like Samsung and Apple which ensure Google Search is the default on devices, to the detriment of competitors
• allowing competitors to access Google’s search index to build their own products

Perhaps unsurprisingly Google has come out strongly against the ‘staggering’ ruling citing a range of potential issues which would accompany any such market changes – ranging from user privacy concerns and restricting access to search and security, to the potential to stifle innovation and technological leadership. And industry commentators have also pointed out the perils of any potential Chrome acquisition by another big player like Meta – although the highly incestuous nature of the relationship between Google Search and its Adtech products makes any such acquisition potentially problematic.

Given data from StatCounter suggesting that Google Search accounts for almost 90% of the search market this all really matters for marketers. And industry players clearly sense opportunity with ChatGPT-creator OpenAI, who previously delved into search with its SearchGPT offering , now reportedly considering developing its own browser .

Why the DOJ concerns on search are the tip of the iceberg for Google

However, the DOJ case relating to monopoly in search isn’t the only thing keeping Google senior executives awake at night. Here is just a flavour of recent history in the regulatory space for Google:  

• DOJ lawsuit against Google for Ad-Tech violations: Google is also engaged in a 2^nd DOJ lawsuit which was filed in 2023 which alleges that Google has been violating anti-trust laws in the operation of its advertising business (more on this in the next section).
• Multiple Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) cases in the UK: an initial investigation that was prompted by competitive concerns about Google’s proposed changes to its Chrome browser  – and which Google itself cited for its u-turn on third party cookies  – has been compounded by more recent accusations of anti-competitive behaviour in the UK’s open-display ad tech market
• A recent history of censure in the EU including:
  • A €2.7bn fine in 2017 which was challenged but upheld for Google abusing its dominant position by favouring its own shopping services over that of its competitorsA €1.49bn ruling in 2019 for breaching EU antitrust rules . Indicating Google had abused its market dominance by imposing a number of restrictive clauses in contracts with third-party websites which prevented Google’s rivals from placing their search adverts on these sites
  • A 2023 antitrust case into possible anticompetitive conduct by Google and Meta , in online display advertising

Why the regulators are taking this type of action against Google now

Why now? Here are some of the key reasons for this.

Concerns around use of monopoly power by Google

There is little doubt that Google holds a fairly unique position in the marketing industry given that it

• controls a large swathe of the AdTech advertising market and ad auctions
• owns the dominant web browser globally (Chrome has 65% market share according to Statista )
• owns GA – one of the most used analytics packages for measuring the effectiveness of their advertising platforms
• controls the Android operating system which has 70.89% of the mobile operating systems market 

The comprehensive nature of its ownership of the key structural elements of marketing tech has offered the potential for monopolistic practices. And this has played out in practice too as Google has been seen to manipulate the infrastructure for financial gain – and engaged in exclusive, anti-competitive practices to cut rivals out of the market. The DOJ ruling is part of a move to try and dismantle that and improve competition in the sector.

The poor way that the third-party cookie issue has been handled

There is probably little doubt that the way that Google has managed its approach to the proposed demise of third-party cookies has been a factor in regulators getting involved in the discussion.

Despite Google’s claim to have user privacy at the heart of their decision-making around third party cookies they have dragged their heels on a decision to drop them from Chrome. While other industry players like Apple and Mozilla took the decision to switch them off years ago. Which has attracted the attention of the regulators.

The process has become afflicted by an ongoing series of delays, changes of direction and u-turns  that have left regulators, publishers and advertisers concerned that any changes have more to do with Google maintaining its dominant position than any drive for real consumer privacy.

Replacement solutions for third party cookies are not fit for purpose

The very fact that the replacement Privacy Sandbox solutions  being proposed by Google are not fit for purpose is a factor too. The industry response to the Sandbox has been cool with concerns ranging from privacy issues to worries around a severe reduction in targeting capability.

And these solutions have prompted regulators like CMA in the UK to also get involved in the process due to their assessment (perhaps not unsurprisingly !) that the Sandbox provides preferential advantage to Google’s own ad offerings.

The evidence on the ground is that regulator concerns are well founded

It is also worth noting that worries expressed by regulators may well be justified. The two instances below are clear evidence of this:

• Google changed its attribution model to its advantage – in June 2024 Google stepped into its attribution model – which sits across its GA4 solution and Google ads – to change the weighting on its data attribution model to give more credit to Paid Search . The reason it gave was problems with tracking across devices, but in a world where Google has already stripped down its choice of attribution models to 2 (Last-Click or Data Driven – which are both heavily skewed toward lower funnel activity) it is highly unlikely that GA users are going to find a result other than that Google ads are performing well for you!
• Google found guilty of ad price manipulation – as part of the 10 week antitrust case into advertising practices  there was the incredible revelation from Google executives that the advertising giant manipulates advertising prices when it needs to boost revenue on a quarterly basis.

So, it appears there is no regulatory smoke without fire.

How marketers are considering alternatives to Google’s inhouse measurement solutions

The reality is that the sheer size and scale of Google’s operations mean that Google isn’t going to disappear any time soon. But the cases against it are giving many users of its search, analytics and advertising products cause for concern. And many are looking at how to insulate themselves from the impact – particularly in the area of performance measurement and attribution.

And reducing your exposure to Google related products and technologies can really pay as follows:

Removing reliance on third-party cookies removes uncertainty

If there is one given from the ‘on-off soap’ opera around the future of third-party cookies that has played out in recent years. It is that marketers could well do without the uncertainty it has caused.

In a market which was already struggling with issues like the impact of iOS 14.5 (and its antecedents) – and an incessant rise in CPAs – it has proven an unwelcome distraction from the key goal of optimising market activity. And the stumble from one proposed solution to the next big delay has created a huge amount of uncertainty across the industry.

Savvy marketers are waking up to the realisation that it is possible to break free of the constraints of third-party cookie-based measurement – and restrictive Google Analytics and AdTech reporting – and are exploring the use of cookieless attribution solutions like our own Corvidae platform.

Get an independent view on the effectiveness of your marketing activity in Walled Gardens

As the Google ecosystem has ballooned over the past 10+ years Google analytics products have seen a rapid expansion in reach, extending to in-house reporting capabilities for products in the Google Ad suite.

The problem with this type of black box approach to analytics  is a lack of data transparency with Google effectively marking its own homework – and with the capability to adjust Ad Tech elements like measurement weightings, auction metrics to its own advantage. However, it is not a problem that is restricted to Google with players like Meta also taking a Walled Garden approach to analytics data.

It is an issue that we see played out daily with customers – with our research showing that 80% of marketers are concerned about bias in AdTech Channel reporting.

Take the example here where GA was showing £20k of revenue, whilst  Facebook was reporting an incredible £450k for the same activity!

By using our own AI driven attribution platform, to effectively rebuild the broken marketing data from the respective Ad Tech platforms  – we were able to establish that the true figure was £150k. Only possible for the customer by moving to free themselves from the view of the big providers.

Take advantage of Open Web opportunities

As the discussion rumbles on about what shape Google’s solutions may or may not take in future, it is a time for marketers to double down in their quest to find alternative solutions that take cookies – and Google related impacts – out of the equation.

Going cookieless opens up a raft of targeting opportunity opportunities on the Open Web on a broad range of platforms including websites, apps, connected TV and podcasts. Estimates of the size of the opportunity vary from anywhere between 45% to 60% of the internet but one thing is for certain – the opportunity is out there and it offers a level of control, transparency and freedom that simply doesn’t exist in the Walled Gardens that the big AdTech players have built. Media like Contextual Advertising powered by AI driven, cookieless attribution provides a privacy centric and cost-effective alternative (data from Remerge indicates that Contextual is 53% cheaper) to flawed, cookie based solutions.

Sidestep Google related concerns with Corvidae now

If you are looking to:

• remove the uncertainty being caused by the never-ending cycle of delays on third-party cookies
• get a truly independent view of the effectiveness of your spend inside Walled Gardens like Google and Meta
• leverage lower cost CPA opportunities on both AdTech platforms and the Open Web

Request a demo of Corvidae with one of our experts now.