Google Defends Closed Ad Ecosystem as a Necessary Security Measure

In a highly publicized legal battle, Google defended itself against accusations of anticompetitive practices by highlighting the security benefits of its closed advertising ecosystem. The case, brought forward by the Department of Justice (DOJ), accuses Google of dominating the ad tech market and limiting competition for financial gain. However, Google’s executives counter that a more controlled environment is necessary to protect users and ensure the integrity of the digital advertising space.

The Security Argument: Why a Closed System is Safer

Google's defense revolves around the argument that its closed ecosystem enhances security, making the online advertising industry safer for advertisers and publishers alike. In court, Per Bjorke, Director of Product Management for Ad Traffic Quality at Google, and Alejandro Borgia, Director of Product Management for Ad Safety, explained how the company uses a multi-layered verification process to vet every publisher and advertiser that signs up to use its ad tools.

Bjorke described how Google blocks between 15,000 to 20,000 fraudulent publishers daily, preventing them from joining the ad platform. Similarly, millions of advertisers are filtered out each year based on signals of malicious activity. These efforts, Google says, are critical to ensuring that ads are bought and sold by real, trustworthy entities rather than bots or fraudulent websites.

The 3ve Botnet: A Case Study in Ad Fraud

To illustrate the dangers of an open ecosystem, Bjorke pointed to the 3ve botnet scam that occurred between 2015 and 2018. The 3ve botnet compromised around 1 million IP addresses and created fake websites to siphon ad dollars from legitimate advertisers. The scam cost Google approximately $30 to $40 million, but Bjorke emphasized that Google compensated advertisers so they wouldn’t bear the losses.

This massive fraud attack is one of the reasons Google has maintained a more controlled environment, Bjorke argued. Opening up its ecosystem could have allowed bad actors more avenues to exploit the system, making it harder for Google to protect its users from fraud.

AWBid: When Google Weighed the Risks of an Open Ecosystem

Bjorke also explained how, in the early 2010s, Google considered a more open ecosystem through a project called AWBid. This initiative would have allowed advertisers using Google’s ad tools to bid on multiple ad exchanges, not just Google’s own AdX. However, after analyzing the potential risks, Google decided that opening up would significantly weaken its defenses against fraud.

"There are very clear, significant benefits of being closed," Bjorke stated in court. While the DOJ highlighted AWBid as proof that Google could allow more competition, Bjorke countered that the project introduced significant security challenges. As a result, Google opted for a more secure, albeit closed, system that allowed it to maintain full control over how ad auctions were conducted and who participated in them.

Google's Role in Industry-Wide Solutions

Despite its reputation as a market giant, Google claims that it isn’t just working to secure its own slice of the advertising industry, but rather to improve the entire digital ad ecosystem. After the 3ve botnet attack, Google collaborated with other companies to develop ads.txt, a code snippet that helps prevent similar fraud schemes. This solution, Bjorke said, was designed to restore trust in digital ads and ensure that advertisers were getting real, human-generated traffic.

The underlying argument Google made is that its power and control over the ecosystem are good for everyone. According to Borgia, Google’s large scale allows it to effectively combat ad fraud, while its ownership of tools across the ad supply chain gives the company more visibility into the system. This visibility enables Google to ensure that ads are safe, free from viruses, and don’t appear next to inappropriate content.

The Closed Ecosystem Debate: Antitrust or Security?

Google’s defense closely mirrors arguments made by other tech giants, such as Apple, which has long argued that its closed app store is essential for maintaining security. Apple made similar claims during its own antitrust battle with Epic Games, a case in which it largely prevailed. However, Google lost its antitrust fight with Epic, which argued that Google’s tight control over Android’s app store stifled competition.

In both cases, the companies have leaned on the same defense: interoperability with other platforms introduces security risks. Google’s attorneys have leaned on a Supreme Court precedent that says companies like Google can’t be forced to deal with rivals, emphasizing that open ecosystems introduce vulnerabilities that are difficult to manage.

What’s Next for Google?

As this phase of the trial wraps up, Google continues to argue that its actions in the ad tech industry are designed to protect users, not eliminate competitors. Whether the court will agree with Google’s defense remains to be seen, but the outcome could have significant implications for the future of digital advertising and how much control tech giants can maintain over their ecosystems.

In the ever-growing digital advertising world, the debate between security and competition rages on. Google insists that its closed ecosystem is the safest option for all parties involved, but critics argue that this control comes at the cost of fair competition.

As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome will determine whether Google can maintain its dominant position in the ad tech space or if the industry will see a shift toward more open, competitive practices.