Google
took
a
page
out
of
a
familiar
playbook
in
court
this
week,
defending
itself
from
claims
of
anticompetitive
conduct
by
raising
security
concerns.
While
the
government
argues
it
locked
up
the
ad
tech
market
to
make
more
money,
Google’s
witnesses
say
that
a
more
closed
ecosystem
is
often
safer
for
users
—
echoing
a
defense
both
it
and
Apple
have
made
of
their
mobile
app
stores.
Google’s
attorneys
have
spent
the
last
few
days
mounting
its
defense
against
the
Department
of
Justice.
The
company
argues
that
conduct
the
Department
of
Justice
paints
as
anticompetitive
—
like
locking
customers
into
its
services
and
exerting
control
over
the
rules
of
the
industry
through
its
dominance
—
actually
has
justifiable
business
purposes.
The
point
was
emphasized
by
two
Google
executive
witnesses:
Per
Bjorke,
director
of
product
management
for
ad
traffic
quality,
and
Alejandro
Borgia,
director
of
product
management
for
ad
safety.
Combined,
the
teams
work
to
ensure
Google’s
ads
are
bought
and
sold
by
trustworthy
parties
and
that
they’re
seen
by
real
people,
not
bots.
Bjorke,
whose
team
focuses
on
publishers,
described
Google’s
extensive
work
to
combat
click
fraud
by
shady
websites.
Each
day,
15,000
to
20,000
publishers
attempt
to
sign
up
to
use
Google’s
tools,
Bjorke
said.
Each
one
needs
to
be
vetted
with
a
multistep
verification
process,
including
mailing
a
physical
letter
to
make
it
harder
for
fraudsters
to
use
fake
addresses.
On
the
advertiser
side,
millions
of
signups
are
blocked
each
year
based
on
signals
of
malicious
intent,
Borgia
said.
Bjorke
and
Borgia
both
said
their
teams
don’t
have
revenue
goals,
and
Google
views
the
protection
as
a
service
that’s
part
of
working
with
its
products.
It’s
all
meant
to
make
sure
bad
actors
don’t
get
into
Google’s
advertising
ecosystem
and
spoil
it
for
everyone,
Bjorke
said.
There
are
“very
clear,
significant
benefits
of
being
closed”
When
Google
had
opportunities
to
open
up
its
ecosystem,
the
company
had
to
weigh
the
security
costs,
Bjorke
said.
In
the
early
2010s,
for
instance,
the
Google
Ads
advertising
network
was
considering
a
way
to
let
its
massive
advertiser
base
bid
on
different
exchanges
than
Google’s
own
AdX.
The
project,
called
AWBid,
would
“fundamentally
change”
the
foundation
of
Google’s
fraud
defenses.
Keeping
out
bad
actors
got
much
harder
when
Google
didn’t
have
full
control
of
how
publishers
got
access
to
ad
auctions.
There
are
“very
clear,
significant
benefits
of
being
closed,”
Bjorke
said.
While
the
DOJ
has
pointed
to
AWBid
as
an
example
of
how
Google
is
capable
of
allowing
more
competition,
Bjorke
countered
that
it
required
a
huge
amount
of
work
and
a
lot
of
risk.
And
any
security
failures
could
be
costly.
Bjorke
related
how,
between
about
2015
and
2018,
the
3ve
botnet
ran
a
massive
online
advertising
scam
to
siphon
ad
dollars.
Google
has
said
the
scheme
compromised
about
1
million
IP
addresses
to
help
its
faked
websites
look
like
they
were
generating
real
traffic.
Bjorke
said
advertisers
didn’t
lose
money,
but
only
because
Google
compensated
them
—
and
Google
itself
lost
around
$30
to
$40
million.
Bjorke
insists
that
far
from
locking
out
competitors,
Google
has
attempted
to
help
them.
After
3ve,
he
says,
Google
realized
it
could
take
one
of
two
paths:
focus
inward
to
protect
advertisers
on
its
own
platform
(growing
its
“slice”
of
the
industry)
or
help
clean
up
ad
fraud
across
the
industry
(growing
the
“pie”).
It
chose
the
latter,
working
with
other
companies
on
a
code
snippet
dubbed
ads.txt,
which
relayed
information
that
made
3ve-style
attacks
far
more
difficult.
Going
this
route
meant
more
work
for
Google,
Bjorke
said,
but
it
addressed
a
potentially
catastrophic
loss
of
confidence
in
digital
ads
compared
to
older
forms
of
advertising
like
TV.
The
underlying
argument
here
is
that
when
Google
gains
power
and
makes
decisions
for
advertisers
and
publishers,
it’s
good
for
everyone.
Without
a
large
scale
of
operations,
Borgia
said,
“we
would
be
unable
to
do
our
jobs.”
And
because
Google
owns
ad
tools
across
the
entire
ecosystem,
he
added,
Google
has
more
visibility
into
the
system
to
make
sure
it’s
running
safe
ads
that
won’t
load
viruses
on
users’
computers
or
show
a
brand
next
to
inappropriate
content.
He
says
Google
also
lets
people
limit
how
their
data
is
used
within
Google’s
ads
ecosystem
—
but
when
an
outside
tool
is
involved,
that
company
could
have
its
own
set
of
rules
around
privacy.
It’s
an
argument
Google
and
other
tech
giants
have
made
elsewhere
with
mixed
results.
In
an
antitrust
fight
with
Epic
—
which
Google
lost
— Google
argued
that
making
third-party
app
stores
and
sideloading
easier
to
access
would
undermine
important
security
protections
on
Android.
Apple
made
a
similar
case
in
its
own
antitrust
suit
with
Epic
—
which
it
mostly
won.
So
far,
in
this
case,
Google
has
leaned
heavily
on
a
Supreme
Court
precedent
that
says
it
can’t
be
forced
to
deal
with
rivals.
As
this
phase
of
the
trial
draws
to
a
close,
it’s
trying
to
bolster
that
case
by
telling
the
judge
that
interoperability
poses
tangible,
pragmatic
risks
as
well.
(Originally posted by Lauren Feiner)
Comments