Jump to content

Page:United States v Google 20240805.pdf/174

From Wikisource
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Case 1:20-cv-03010-APM
Document 1033
Filed 08/05/24
Page 174 of 286

intent on Google or Amazon is more likely to result in the sale of golf shorts than a social media ad on Instagram.

Retargeted ads differ from search ads for a similar reason. A retargeted display ad can be served only after the user has visited the advertiser’s platform. FOF ¶¶ 202–203. For instance, a consumer interested in buying a portable Bluetooth speaker will see a retargeted display ad for, say, a Sonos-brand portable speaker, only if they have previously visited the Sonos website. But a search ad for such a product is presented immediately, regardless of whether the user has previously visited the advertiser’s website. The time lag between the user’s originally expressed intent and delivery of the retargeted ad makes such ads less effective. FOF ¶ 203 (describing how retargeting signals rapidly grow stale, even after just one hour).

Another unique characteristic of search ads is that they are not limited by privacy features. A user enters a query and gets a result without intermediation from privacy filters. On the other hand, display and retargeted display ads require individualized user information from cookie tracking and audience profiling, which can be disabled or impeded by platforms or the user. FOF ¶ 204.

At bottom, search ads and non-search ads are not “roughly equivalent”: Search ads better approximate user intent than other ad types, and they do so with immediacy. Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Interchangeability implies that one product is roughly equivalent to another for the use to which it is put; while there may be some degree of preference for the one over the other, either would work effectively.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Industry or Public Recognition. Advertisers recognize search ads as a distinct product market. See Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 612 n.31 (1953) (considering

170