Google operates illegal ad monopolies that ‘substantially harmed’ customers, judge rules
Google operates illegal monopolies over two separate markets related to digital advertising technology, a federal judge ruled on Thursday – dealing the Big Tech giant another historic antitrust loss that could result in a breakup of its online empire.
The bombshell ruling by US Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia determined that Google violated the Sherman Act by dominating the online publisher ad server market and the ad-exchange market that connects ad buyers to sellers.
“Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anticompetitive practices on its customers and eliminating desirable product features,” Brinkema wrote.
“In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” the judge added.
Shares of Google parent Alphabet were off 1.2% at $153.64 on Thursday.
A Google breakup “looks likely” in light of the court rulings, according to Mike Davis, an antitrust adviser to President Trump and founder of the conservative Internet Accountability Project.
The Justice Department has argued that the court should force Google to sell off its digital advertising products, especially the Google Ad Manager, which includes both its publisher ad server and its ad exchange.
“Google made its trillions by monopolizing the online advertising market, then Google uses its market power to crush competition, shutter small businesses and cancel conservatives,” Davis said. “That’s coming to an end.”
The News/Media Alliance, a nonprofit that represents more than 2,200 publishers including The Post and a longtime critic of Google’s business practices, said Brinkema’s ruling marked “a big day for our industry.”
“The news media industry hails the court’s decision to again hold Google accountable for decades of abuse of its market power,” said Danielle Coffey, the nonprofit’s president and CEO. “Google’s monopolistic tactics—this time in the advertising market—have starved content creators of the revenues they deserve and need to sustain quality journalism.”
Brinkema said the DOJ had failed to prove that Google has a monopoly over a third market for advertiser ad networks during the three-week nonjury trial, which was originally brought in 2023 by the DOJ and a coalition of US states.
As a result, Google claimed partial victory and vowed to challenge the rest of the judge’s determinations.
“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” Google vice president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement.
“We disagree with the Court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective,” Mulholland added.
Online watchdogs lauded Brinkema’s ruling as a major victory for Google’s critics.
“This ruling is an unequivocal win for the American people that will help lower prices, increase competition, and lead to a better internet for everyone,” said Sacha Howarth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project.
“We applaud Judge Brinkema’s decision that Google must face accountability for its illegal and exclusionary conduct in the advertising technology sector,” Yelp General Counsel Aaron Schur said in a statement. “We are hopeful that the DOJ will propose significant remedies that provide a path to fair competition and an open internet for all.”
“With this decision, and the remedies the Court decides to impose, Gannett anticipates that balance will be restored to the digital advertising market and that publishers like Gannett will have the ability to compete fairly without having to contend with Google’s market manipulation,” a Gannett spokesperson said.
DOJ attorneys argued during trial that Google has harmed online publishers and businesses alike by abusing its power as primary gatekeeper for online ad deals. During the trial, the feds said Google leverages monopoly power to siphon up to 35 cents for every dollar spent on its ad platforms.
According to one document presented at trial, a Google executive boasted in 2009 that the company’s goal in the digital ads business was to “crush” rivals.
Meanwhile, Google’s attorneys had argued that the DOJ’s case was based on an outdated understanding of the internet and warned that it carried a “serious risk of error or unintended consequences” if the government intervened.
A second trial phase will be held to “determine the appropriate remedies” to tackle Google’s monopoly, Brinkema said.
The ruling is another major legal blow for Google. Last year, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that Google has an illegal monopoly over the online search market.
The remedies phase for that trial is set to begin Monday, with prosecutors seeking a forced selloff of its Chrome web browser, among other fixes.
