From Banksy and Bernanke to Bell and Jedi Blue, Google’s numerous internal code words likely to emerge during the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google shed a strange light on various aspects of the case – and on many of the giant’s past and present adtech activities.
The ad tech sector’s largest antitrust trial, which begins Sept. 9, has nothing to do with mysterious artists, Fed chairmen or Star Wars sages. But the court filings reveal nearly two dozen colorful code names for projects related to what the Justice Department accuses Google of doing in its dealings with advertisers, publishers and ad tech competitors.
Google’s choice of name also reflects some unique metaphors that could help the U.S. government make its point. During the search engine antitrust trial in May, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer mentioned Google’s project called Polyjuice. Polyjuice, mentioned during closing arguments, was a name for Google’s Randomized Generalized Second-Price (RGSP) program, which allowed the company to randomly exchange bids in search engine auctions.
“If you haven’t read the Harry Potter books, my kids told me that Polyjuice Potion uses a potion that makes you look like someone else,” noted David Dahlquist, a Justice Department attorney, in May. “But as you’ll see, the name is very apt.”
Here’s a look at some of the codenames mentioned in the legal briefs filed by the Justice Department and state attorneys general, many of which Google will likely challenge in court. (Other project codenames mentioned in the court filings include Elmo, Momiji, 1Door, Garamond, Metta, and more.)
Project Narnia
The famous fictional world of CS Lewis also appears in a project called “Project Narnia,” as part of which Google has changed its privacy policies for user data on all of its websites, such as Google Search, Gmail and YouTube, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
According to a footnote in the original Justice Department complaint, Google began aggregating all user data into a single user ID in 2016 to allow owners to combine data, which was “invaluable to Google’s efforts to build and maintain its monopoly in the adtech industry.” Over time, according to one exhibit, Narnia enabled Google to “leverage this unique trove of data to increase the power of Google’s shopping tools.” Another court document mentions an updated Narnia 2.0, which appears to refer to Google’s efforts to improve measurement and link interest data to other signals like location, web history, and search queries.
The revelations about Project Narnia are part of the Justice Department’s strategy to attack one of Google’s defense strategies. While Google claims some of the issues in the case are related to Google’s actions to protect user privacy, the Justice Department said Google “intentionally exploited its vast trove of user data to further cement its monopoly in the digital advertising industry.”
Jedi and Jedi Blue
Since Jedi Blue first appeared in a 2021 lawsuit filed by state attorneys general, it has been a notorious example of a code word referring to Google and Facebook’s alleged plans to restrict advertisers’ adoption of header bidding. (The plan reportedly called for Google to give Facebook preferential treatment in exchange for Facebook abandoning its own plans to adopt some form of header bidding.)
The project, originally called Jedi, created a way to let rival ad exchanges compete in real time on Google’s platforms under Google’s terms, according to the Justice Department. The Justice Department also quoted a senior product manager who described Jedi as only “slightly better” than previous versions of header bidding. In another case, court documents cite advertisers who claim the alleged arrangement increased ad prices by 122% in the year the deal was signed and by 90% a year later.
Project Bernanke
Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Project Bernanke was launched in 2013, court documents say. The U.S. Department of Justice described it as a “secret scheme to manipulate the bids” that Google Ads placed on its AdX exchange. The effort allegedly allowed Google to win more competitive transactions while preventing competitors from achieving sufficient transaction volume and size to compete. This eliminated the need for Google to “compete for customers and volume on the basis of merit.”
According to the Justice Department, the project was named after Bernanke “because it resembled ‘quantitative easing on the ad exchange.'” In a related lawsuit filed by the states’ attorneys general, the states said Project Bernanke helped Google “engage in blatant monopoly behavior by siphoning publishers’ revenue and keeping it for itself.” In 2014, another project, dubbed “Global Bernanke,” changed the way Google calculates take rates on Google Ads, according to the Justice Department. This resulted in Google setting different take rates for different publishers based on how likely they were to switch to competing ad servers.
Project Bell
The U.S. Department of Justice said Google launched Project Bell in 2014, a “recalibration” of Project Bernanke. The project was a response to publishers’ use of “first call” technology, which gave competing ad exchanges access to their inventory before Google’s AdX. If a publisher wanted to partner with competitors and Google’s AdX exchange did not provide early access, Google reduced publishers’ ad bid prices by 20 to 30 percent.
“Of course, only a company like Google with significant market power across the ad tech stack would have the incentive or ability to implement such a program,” the U.S. Department of Justice said in a court document. “Project Bell protected Google’s ad exchange from this new form of competition and preserved preferential access for buyers on Google’s ad exchange, including Google Ads.”
Project Poirot
Project Poirot, which shares the same last name as the famous detective from Agatha Christie’s novels, helped Google stay ahead of the competition by lowering the bids DV360 sent to rival ad exchanges, according to the Justice Department, so publishers had an incentive to match Google’s bids. A court filing said Poirot helped “shadow” advertisers’ bids on third-party exchanges when they did not use second-price auctions. As evidence, it cited a 2017 Google slide presentation, which said Poirot helped “discover the exchanges that deviate from the second-price policy and bid accordingly on them to improve advertiser performance there.” A court filing cites a 2018 email from a Google executive claiming Poirot increased spending on AdX by 7%, while a 2019 document said Poirot cut spending on most third-party exchanges by 15%.
According to the Justice Department, the project initially lowered bid prices by 10 to 40 percent, but eventually by as much as 90 percent. By 2017, settings were changed to make DV360 the default for all ad campaigns, but only 1 percent of advertisers opted out, resulting in 70 percent of spending going to AdX.
Project Alchemist
According to the Justice Department, a bidding algorithm called Project Alchemist was introduced in 2019 in response to AdX’s switch from a second-price auction to a first-price auction. According to court documents, Project Alchemist aimed to help Google Ads participate in the new auction format while achieving the same take rate for Google. A document filed by the states’ attorneys general said Google sometimes used “Alchemist” to refer to its updated version of Bernanke. The evidence documents also said Google “continues to engage in variable ad pricing through ‘Project Alchemist.'”
Banksy, Stonehenge and other names
The Justice Department’s original antitrust complaint mentions other code-worded projects, but one of them, called “Project Banksy,” allegedly addressed potential remedies in response to antitrust investigations. For example, the transcript mentions that “Project Banksy” was part of what led to a settlement with France’s competition authority earlier this year.
“In response to numerous active government investigations of its ad tech business and anticipated litigation, Google considered potential remedies to resolve those investigations and avoid litigation,” a court document filed by Google states. “Beginning in late 2019, Google initiated a series of projects to develop and evaluate these potential remedies: the SingleClick, Stonehenge, Sunday, Monday and Banksy projects (the ‘Remedies Projects’).”
It’s also ironic that an anonymous artist like Banksy is among the namesakes in the antitrust case. Banksy is known for his innovative and subversive street art, but his identity is still a mystery. The coming month, however, is likely to shed new light on the many ways Google has left its mark over the past digital decade.
