In a new court filing, Google denies colluding with Facebook.
Alex Castro is the illustrator.
The antitrust complaint was filed last week and alleges that it colluded with Facebook to manipulate the programmatic ad markets.
The complaint might serve the narrow interests of those who have failed to invest properly, compete successfully, or innovate consistently, but it also threatens to stifle the dynamism that drives the company.
The complaint is misrepresentative of our business, products, and motives.
The antitrust suit was originally filed in November and has been led by the Texas attorney general. The complaint filed last week provided specific details about the alleged conspiracy between Facebook and Google, including a project called "Jedi Blue" that the suit says intended to limit ad bidding practices.
The complaint is based on internal emails that show that the Jedi Blue deal was reviewed with input from the CEOs of Meta and Facebook. The deal was approved without the approval of Pichai.
The new response from Adam Cohen states that the allegations are more heat than light and that they don't meet the legal standard to bring the case to trial. He wrote in the post that the complaint misrepresented his business, products and motives and that they were moving to dismiss it.
Courts are skeptical of challenges to how a company designs its own products.
The allegation is that publishers are forced to use the ad server in order to access the ad exchange. The claim is incorrect and the AG offers no evidence to prove it. The company denies that it rigged ad auctions to favor Facebook and that it held back rivals from using its Open Bidding program. Cohen says that the lawsuit is based on outdated information that does not correlate to our current products or business.
The new complaint quotes an email from 2015, in which employees of the search engine were worried that their exchange might have to compete with other exchanges in the future. A new section of the complaint states that Facebook had an advantage in auctions because of concessions made by Google.
The lawsuit does not show any anticompetitive conduct, according to the motion to dismiss. The motion states that despite amassing a lengthy collection of grievances, each one comes down to a plea for Google to share its data or to design its products in ways that would help its rivals. No such thing is required by the Sherman Act. The conduct alleged in the [complaint] does not fall into the narrow exception to the general rule that any firm may choose with whom it will deal, and courts are rightly skeptical of challenges to how a company designs its own products, especially when innovation creates more choices for
Cohen said that the agreement is not exclusive and that FAN is one of over 25 partners in the Open Bidding program.
Cohen said that the agreement benefits advertisers and publishers. He wrote in the post that if FAN weren't a part of Open Bidding, AG Paxton may have claimed we were preventing a rival from accessing our products and deprive publishers of additional revenue.