Google Dodges Antitrust Trial With $2.3M Payout

(ImpactHeadlines.com) – The massive global tech leader Google managed to avoid a jury trial by giving the Department of Justice a $2.3 million payout over an antitrust case.

Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled the payout was enough to suffice for potential damages that would’ve been awarded by members of a jury. The case will now face a bench trial that has been scheduled for September.

The case follows lawsuits filed by the federal government, along with several state governments, after Google allegedly acquired several publishers and advertisers, thereby forcing them to use its own marketing solutions. Several federal and state government agencies spent more than $100 million on ads through those platforms between 2019 and 2023, leading to claims of overcharging.

The federal government claimed that a jury was needed since government agencies were supposedly overcharged. Officials opposed Google’s efforts to overturn a trial by jury despite the unusual nature of requesting a jury for an antitrust suit. They argued that the settlement did not sufficiently cover its losses. The calculations reached by the government over the total amount of alleged losses were redacted. However, the judge disagreed, saying, “I am satisfied that the cashier’s check satisfies any damages claim.” Google insists the payment does not constitute an admission of guilt.

However, Google claimed that the Department of Justice previously said the total damages accounted for less than $1 million, not even half of the amount Google paid. The filing even calls it an “undisputed fact.” It also accuses the DOJ of later ignoring that fact. Google paid the full amount in May but said it will continue to dispute any liability.

Some lingering issues remain from the lawsuit, including claims that Google has monopolized the digital ads market. The suit asks that Google be required to divest several of its platforms and technologies, especially the Google Ad Manager suite. Google called the argument “flawed” while claiming that it would harm small, local businesses across the country.