From ‘Jedi Blue’ to ‘Banksy’: What Google’s code names reveal in the DOJ’s landmark antitrust case

Google’s choice of names also reflect some unique metaphors that could help the U.S. government illustrate its case. During the search antitrust trial in May, one lawyer for the DOJ brought up Google’s project called Polyjuice. Mentioned during closing arguments, Polyjuice was a name for Google’s Randomized Generalized Second-Price (RGSP) program that allowed it to randomly swap bids in search auctions.

“In case you haven’t read the Harry Potter books, my kids have informed me that Polyjuice uses a magic potion designed to make you look like someone else,” David Dahlquist, an attorney for the DOJ, noted in May. “But as you’ll see, the name is very appropriate.”

Here’s a look at some of the code names mentioned in legal evidence filed by the DOJ and state attorneys general, with many that Google will likely contend in court. (Others include project code names mentioned in court filings include Elmo, Momiji, 1Door, Garamond, Metta and more.)

Project Narnia

The famous fictional world of C.S. Lewis world also shows up in a project called Project Narnia, which the DOJ says involved Google changing its privacy policy on user data across its owned properties like Google Search, Gmail and YouTube. 

According to a footnote in the DOJ’s original complaint, Google in 2016 began combining all users data into a single user ID to allow owned properties to combine data, which “proved invaluable to Google’s efforts to build and maintain its monopoly across the ad tech industry.” According to one exhibit, Narnia over time allowed Google to use “this unique trove of data to supercharge the ability of Google’s buying tools.” Another court document mentions an updated Narnia 2.0 which seems to refer to Google’s efforts to improve measurement and marry interest data with other signals like location, web history and search queries.

Revelations of Project Narnia are part of the DOJ’s strategy for attacking one of Google’s defenses. While Google has claimed some of the issues in the case are related to Google actions to protect user privacy, the DOJ said Google “intentionally exploited its massive trove of user data to further entrench its monopoly across the digital advertising industry.”

Jedi and Jedi Blue

Since first surfacing in a 2021 lawsuit filed by state attorneys general, Jedi Blue is an infamous example of a code word referring to Google and Facebook alleged plans to curb advertiser adoption of header bidding. (The plan allegedly involved Google giving Facebook preferential treatment in exchange for Facebook ditching its own plans to a form of adopt header bidding.)

Initially called Jedi, the project created a way to let rival ad exchanges compete in real time on Google’s platforms under Google’s terms, according to the DOJ. The DOJ also cited a lead product manager who described Jedi as performing only “slightly better” than early versions of header bidding. In a separate case, court docs cite advertisers claiming the alleged agreement increased ad prices by 122% the year the deal was signed, and grew 90% a year later.

Project Bernanke

Named after the former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, court docs say Project Bernanke was launched in 2013 in what the DOJ described as a “secret scheme to manipulate the bids” submitted by Google Ads into its AdX exchange. The efforts allegedly allowed Google to win more competitive transactions while also blocking competitors from reaching enough transaction volume and scale to compete — allowing Google to “not have to compete on the merits for customers and volume.” 

According to the DOJ, the project was named after Bernanke “because it resembled ‘quantitative easing on the Ad Exchange.’” In a related complaint filed by state attorneys general, the states said Project Bernanke helped Google “engage in overt monopoly behavior by grabbing publisher revenue and keeping it for itself.” In 2014, another project titled “Global Bernanke” changed how Google calculates the take rate in Google Ads, according to the DOJ, resulting in Google having different take rates for different publishers based on how likely they were to shift to rival ad servers.

Project Bell

A “recalibration” of Project Bernanke, the DOJ said Google introduced Project Bell in 2014 in response to publishers using “first-call” technology that allowed rival ad exchanges to get inventory access before Google’s AdX. If a publisher attempted to partner with rivals and didn’t give Google’s AdX exchange early access, Google reduced ad bid prices to publishers by between 20% and 30%.

“Of course, only a company like Google with substantial market power across the entire ad tech stack would have the incentive or ability to implement such a program,” read a DOJ court document. “Project Bell both insulated 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

Sharing the same last name as the famous detective in Agatha Christie’s novels, Project Poirot helped Google head off rivals by lowering the bids that DV360 sent to rival ad exchanges so that publishers were incentivized to go with Google’s bids, according to the DOJ. One court filing noted Poirot helped with “shading” advertiser bids on third-party exchanges if they didn’t use second price auctions. The evidence cites a 2017 Google slide deck about Poirot helping “to discover the exchanges that deviate from second pricing and bid appropriately on these to improve advertiser performance on these.” One legal filing cited a 2018 email from a Google exec that claimed Poirot increased spending on AdX by 7% while a 2019 document said Poirot reduced spend on most third-party exchanges by 15%.

According to the DOJ, the project initially cut bid prices between 10% and 40% but eventually reduced them by as much as 90%. By 2017, settings were changed to make DV360 the default for all ad campaigns, but only 1% of advertisers opted out, leading to 70% of spend going to AdX.

Project Alchemist

According to the DOJ, a bidding algorithm known as Project Alchemist was introduced in 2019 in response to AdX shifting from a second-price auction to a first-price auction. Court documents allege that Project Alchemist aimed to help Google Ads participate in the new auction format while still receiving the same take rate for Google. One document filed by state attorneys general says Google sometimes used “Alchemist” as a reference to its updated version of Bernanke. Court docs in the evidence also say Google “continues to engage in variable pricing with ads via “Project Alchemist.”

Banksy, Stonehenge and other names

There are other code-worded projects mentioned in the DOJ’s initial antitrust complaint, but one, called Project Banksy, allegedly addressed potential remedies in response to antitrust investigations. For example, on transcript mentions Project Banksy was part of what led to settlement earlier this year with the French Competition Authority. 

“In response to numerous active government investigations of its ad tech business and anticipated litigation, Google considered potential remedies in order to resolve those investigations and avoid litigation,” according to one court document filed by Google. “Beginning in late 2019, Google initiated a number of projects to develop and evaluate those potential remedies: Projects SingleClick, Stonehenge, Sunday, Monday, and Banksy (the ‘Remedy Projects’).”

There’s also an irony with an anonymous artist like Banksy being among the eponyms in the antitrust evidence. Known for innovative and subversive street art, Banksy’s identity is still a mystery. However, the coming month will likely shed new light on the many ways Google’s made a mark across the past digital decade.