Google Adtech Monopoly Ruling: Potential Breakup Looms

Google Found in Violation of Antitrust Laws in Ad Tech Market

A ruling by a federal judge has determined that Google engaged in practices that violated antitrust regulations. Specifically, the company was found to have “willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power” within the advertising technology sector.

This decision concludes a legal process spanning two years, initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and eight individual states against the Alphabet-owned technology giant.

Remedies Under Consideration

The court is now preparing to establish a schedule for briefings and a hearing date. The purpose of these proceedings will be to determine the appropriate corrective measures for the identified antitrust violations.

Potential remedies being considered include structural changes, such as requiring Google to divest parts of its advertising business. This could involve the sale of Google Ad Manager, encompassing the AdX ad exchange and DFP (DoubleClick for Publishers), the widely used ad server for publishers.

Alternatively, the court could impose behavioral remedies. These would allow Google to retain its existing business structure, but with restrictions designed to foster fair competition.

Such restrictions might prohibit Google from giving preferential treatment to its own exchange or demand sources during advertising auctions.

Parallel Antitrust Case Regarding Search

This ruling follows a similar finding in a separate antitrust case. Last year, another federal judge concluded that Google illegally held a monopoly in the general internet search market.

While remedies in that case have not yet been issued, they are anticipated by mid-2025.

Specific Findings in the Ad Tech Case

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, in her memorandum opinion, clarified that the plaintiffs did not successfully demonstrate that “open-web display advertiser ad networks” constitute a distinct market where Google possesses monopoly power.

These networks facilitate the purchase of display advertisements across the open internet, excluding closed ecosystems like Facebook, Instagram, and Google Search itself.

However, the judge agreed with the plaintiffs that Google violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing and illegally integrating two key components of the ad tech stack: DFP and AdX.

The court also found Google guilty of abusing its monopoly power specifically within the publisher-side ad tech landscape.

Google’s Response

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, stated the company’s position. “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” she said in a statement.

Mulholland emphasized that the court acknowledged Google’s advertiser tools and acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, do not negatively impact competition.

She expressed disagreement with the ruling concerning publisher tools, asserting that publishers have numerous options and choose Google due to the simplicity, affordability, and effectiveness of its ad tech solutions.

Origins of the Lawsuit

The Department of Justice, along with the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia, initiated the lawsuit against Google in January 2023.

The suit alleged that Google misused its monopoly power within the digital advertising market.

Key Allegations

The DOJ argued that Google achieved its monopolistic position through anti-competitive actions, beginning with the acquisition of DoubleClick in 2008.

This acquisition formed the foundation of Google’s advertising business.

Further strengthening its control, Google purchased AdMeld in 2011, gaining greater influence over the supply side of the ad market.

The government contends that these actions enabled Google to increase advertising prices and reduce publisher revenue by increasing its share of each transaction.

Trial Details

The trial commenced in September 2024 and lasted for three weeks. Closing arguments were presented in late November.

This article has been updated to provide additional context regarding the case.