Facts
On 18 May 2023 the Turkish Competition Board opened an investigation of its own motion (decision 23-23/432-M) into Google's conduct in online display advertising and ad tech services. Google operates at every link of the ad tech supply chain: it offers advertisers demand-side platforms (DSPs), Google Ads and DV360, and offers publishers an ad server, Google Ad Manager, and a supply-side platform (SSP), AdX. Ad impressions are sold largely through automated real-time auctions. The allegations about access to YouTube inventory and ad measurement were closed when the Board accepted Google's commitments by decision 24-21/486-207 of 3 May 2024. The investigation continued on the self-preferencing allegations.
Question
The Board examined two questions. First, whether Google had used its strength in DSP services to route purchase requests from its own DSPs to its own SSP. Second, whether it had used its dominance in the publisher ad server market to favour AdX over rival SSPs through the rules and functions that govern how auctions are run. That required an assessment, under Article 6 of Law No. 4054, of dynamic allocation, the 'last look' advantage over header bidding, the dynamic revenue share model, the first-price auction rules introduced in 2019 and the terms applied to SSPs taking part in Open Bidding.
Decision
By decision 24-53/1180-509 of 12 December 2024 the Board unanimously found Google dominant in DSP services but found no infringement on the routing allegation. It did find Google dominant in publisher ad serving and held that it had given AdX an unfair advantage. Dynamic allocation let AdX use rivals' estimated or actual bids as its floor and win by a small margin, and dynamic revenue sharing reinforced this. After 2019, the 5-10% Open Bidding fee and the bar on rival SSPs receiving bids from Google's DSPs kept AdX ahead. Google was fined TRY 2,607,563,963.59, at a rate raised for repeat infringement, and must give third-party SSPs terms no less favourable than its own within six months or face daily fines.
Why it matters
The decision shows that the software functions that set the rules of programmatic ad auctions can be examined as tools of self-preferencing by a vertically integrated platform. The Board did not accept that rivals winning more impressions over time proved the conduct had no effect. It also held that earlier infringement decisions against Google could count towards the repeat-infringement uplift without waiting for them to become final in the courts. The decision can be challenged before the Ankara administrative courts. Press reports said Google would appeal; whether an action was brought, and with what result, could not be verified for this entry.
Related stages
By decision 24-28/682-283 of 4 July 2024 the Board found that Google had not abused its dominance through search features such as videos, 'People also ask', translation, sports and weather boxes. The 2021 decision on Google's local search services is covered in a separate entry.