- U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized key sectors of the digital ad market and tied its services (DoubleClick for Publishers and AdX) in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The DOJ and 17 states filed the lawsuit, and the ruling could force Google to divest parts of its ad tech operations.
- The decision marks a milestone in the DOJ’s efforts to curb Big Tech monopolies, following a 2024 ruling against Google’s search dominance. Prosecutors alleged Google’s 15-year anticompetitive practices inflated ad prices, reduced publisher revenue and stifled rivals like Amazon and Meta.
- Google disputes the ruling, arguing its tools benefit publishers and warning forced breakups would “stifle innovation.” The company vows to appeal but faces broader legal challenges, including an upcoming April trial over its search dominance.
- Publishers and competitors hailed the decision as a win against Google’s monopolistic tactics. Critics claim Google’s control over ad tech harmed competition and publisher revenues.
- The ruling intensifies scrutiny of tech giants, with potential ripple effects in Europe (where Google previously faced fines) and upcoming U.S. remedies hearings. Analysts see it as a turning point in enforcing antitrust laws in the digital age, possibly reshaping the $500B ad industry.
In a landmark ruling that could reshape the digital advertising landscape, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema today declared Google guilty of unlawfully monopolizing two key sectors of the online ad technology market and tying services in violation of federal antitrust laws. The decision, issued in a lawsuit jointly filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 17 states, sets the stage for potential remedies that could include forcing Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, to divest its ad tech operations.
The ruling centers on Google’s longstanding control over publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, technologies that underpin how advertisers and websites transact billions of dollars in digital ads yearly. Judge Brinkema, who oversees the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, found that Google violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing these markets and anticompetitively tying its DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server to its AdX ad exchange. “Google’s exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” the judge wrote.
A decade-long antitrust offensive reaches milestone
The decision marks a significant victory for the DOJ’s broader campaign to curb Big Tech monopolies, following a judge’s August 2024 ruling that Google unlawfully maintained dominance in internet search. The ad tech case, first filed in 2023, alleges a 15-year pattern of conduct enabling Google to stifle competition, inflate ad prices for buyers and reduce revenues for content creators. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who leads the DOJ antitrust division, called the ruling a “critical step toward restoring competition in a sector vital to internet health.”
The court’s findings highlight Google’s use of its ad tech stack—an integrated suite of tools—to lock publishers into its services. Prosecutors argued Google required publishers to use its ad exchanges and servers, foreclosing rivals like Amazon and Meta from competing. The judge agreed, noting Google also acquired competitors, such as DoubleClick in 2007, to entrenched dominance. To “cure” the monopoly, the DOJ seeks a breakup of Google Ad Manager, which packages DFP and AdX, though the remedy phase of the trial has not yet begun.
The ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of tech giants. The FTC’s ongoing trial against Meta over its acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp underscores parallels between Silicon Valley’s consolidation tactics and regulators’ push to unwind them. “This isn’t just about ads—it’s about whether any company can corner the market on tools essential to the open web,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard A. Powers at a post-announcement press conference.
Google warns breakups could “stifle innovation,” vows appeal
Google staunchly contests the legal framework underpinning the ruling. Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland stated the company “disagree[s] with the court’s decision regarding our publisher tools,” adding that it “will appeal” its losses while emphasizing its partial victory in the advertiser ad networks market. “Publishers choose Google because our tools are simple, affordable and effective,” she said, rejecting claims that its ad stack harms competition.
The company has long argued that splitting its ad tech operations would disrupt innovation and disadvantaged small publishers reliant on its platforms. In 2023, then-Senior VP Dan Taylor warned legislators that forced divestitures would “raise advertising fees and make it harder for small businesses to grow.” However, industry stakeholders largely welcomed the ruling as a reprieve from years of perceived Google overreach.
The News/Media Alliance, representing 2,200 publishers, praised the decision as a “big day for our industry,” stating the ruling “counters Google’s monopolistic tactics that starved content creators of revenue.” Yelp General Counsel Aaron Schur, whose company sued Google for anticompetitive practices in 2013, called the ruling a “critical first step toward fair competition.”
Looking ahead: Remedies and regulatory reckoning for tech giants
Brinkema’s order now shifts focus to the remedies phase, where the DOJ will propose antitrust remedies. A separate trial slated for April 22nd in Washington, D.C., will address the DOJ’s demand that Google spin off Chrome and other services to curb its search dominance, further escalating pressure on Google’s corporate structure.
Analysts speculate the ad tech ruling could embolden regulators globally. The European Commission has previously fined Google $1.5 billion for ad tech practices, and U.S. Class Action lawsuits from publishers like the Washington Post and Aol also loom. “Today’s ruling reinforces that antitrust law isn’t obsolete in the digital age,” said law professor Daisuke Wakabayashi of Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center. “Tech monopolies’ days of unilateral control may finally be numbered.”
A new chapter in the battle for tech accountability
As Google’s legal and financial penalties mount—Alphabet’s shares fell 2.1% on the news—the ruling underscores a cultural shift in how tech power is perceived. Once hailed as the embodiment of innovation, Google now faces reckonings for leveraging dominance in markets many regard as foundational to public discourse. With policymakers and judges from both parties now targeting Big Tech, the open internet’s future hinges on how aggressively those mandates are enforced—and how companies adapt. For now, Google’s ad empire, built atop two decades of consolidation, remains in existential limbo, awaiting remedies hearings that could restructure the $500 billion digital advertising industry.
Sources include:
