Google has an illegal monopoly on online advertising, judge rules
Google is an illegal monopolist in online advertising, a federal court has determined, in a ruling that could lead to a breakup of its ad business.
Google monopolised online ads, a court determined.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized advertising markets. The ruling determined that Google had control over a number of advertising markets, to the level of a monopoly, which it used to its advantage.
In the ruling, Judge Brinkema determined that Google's monopoly affected the market for publisher ad servers and for ad exchanges. In effect, Google was able to influence the way advertisers bought ads, as well as how much publishers sold that ad space for.
This was enough to influence and exert control over the overall online advertising market in general.
However, an attempt to show that Google monopolized advertiser ad networks failed, despite the Department of Justice's urging.
The ruling gives fuel to the possibility that Google will have to break apart its lucrative advertising business in some way. Following the ruling, the court will be seeking remedies from Google on how it can rectify the situation.
A big squeeze
The battle saw the U.S. government claim Google had used its size and influence on both the buyer and seller sides of the equation. In doing so, it was able to raise the prices of ad spots, while also reducing the ability for competitors to take Google on.
The ruling from Judge Brinkema determined Google deprived competitors of "the ability to compete," which substantially harmed Google's customers and consumers, as well as market competition.
As part of the ruling, the judge has ordered the lawsuit's parties to offer arguments and proposals for how Google's monopoly in ad tech can be eliminated. The Department of Justice has previously insisted that Google could break off the Google Ad Manager, selling it to another company at a minimum.
Oddly, this is a thing that Google had previously considered, having thought about it in 2019 and 2022. This occurred before the DOJ's suit was filed in 2023.
Twice the monopoly
This is not the first time Google has been referred to as an illegal monopoly by the court. In August 2024, a court agreed with the DOJ that Google had an illegal monopoly in the search market.
In that instance, Google was said to have a monopoly on the search engine market, and had performed actions to shut out competing search engines.
While Apple wasn't involved in the latest ad market case, it did have a role in the search engine market one.
In that instance, the court discussed how Google paid billions to firms to make it the most prominent or first choice for consumers. This included paying Apple $20 billion in 2022 to keep Google as the default search in Safari.
Break-ups and benefits
For Google, the result is making the prospect of a partial breaking up of the company more likely.
Under the first antitrust monopoly ruling, while Google proposed remedies such as altering existing contracts with Apple and others, the DoJ was more blunt in insisting there be a sale or break-up.
With the court asking for remedies once again, this will give the DOJ a second opportunity to recommend a breaking-up or a sale of a business arm.
A shifting of the ad business away from Google wouldn't be a death knell for the search giant. It wouldn't affect the ad sales on Google's properties, such as Gmail, Google Maps, or YouTube.
Indeed, any remedies that affect the ad business could be beneficial to Apple. The iPhone maker has been expanding its own advertising arm, and it could see an opportunity for growth if Google's forced into actions to improve competition.
This is pretty much the opposite result of the worst that could happen to Apple under the earlier monopoly lawsuit. Under that one, the remedies could affect the billions Apple receives from Google for Safari search preferences.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Will Facebook be the next?
Microsoft has been scrutinized as well for anti-trust behavior. Apple has come under fire for how they operate their App Store. In fact they had to open up their walled garden in the EU to let third-party app stores in. That was a couple of years ago.
To all extent, all of the Fortune 100 companies with consumer-facing businesses will come under scrutiny from time to time with various agencies worldwide focusing on the top 20 companies or so.
For sure Alphabet is also being scrutinized for YouTube's dominance. Today's declaration of a monopolistic ad network is directly tied to Google Search (which is also considered monopolistic) because Google AdWords has been the long-time cash cow for Google (now Alphabet).
These two articles explains it well:
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/08/05/google-search-antitrust-monopoly/
https://www.macrumors.com/2025/03/10/doj-google-chrome-sale/
and the DoJ is pushing for divestiture of the Google Chrome browser. It has back burnered divestiture of the Android operating system but that's still something they could push for later.
It's worth pointing out that many these DoJ actions started before the current administration which does not seem to be pulling the reins on the DoJ's pursuit.
And as we've seen from DOGE reforms and other executive branch action, the current administration has no problems doing things very quickly. If the current president wanted the AG to drop Alphabet litigation, it could have happened very quickly. After all the AG sits in cabinet meetings.
It's not like POTUS doesn't know what's on the AG's plate. I'm sure POTUS has separate individual meetings with all of his cabinet appointees, just like all managers handling direct reports. They're there because he wants them to be there to do what he wants.
My guess is that the Attorney General will push for harsh penalties like divestiture of the Chrome browser and Google's advertising business unit. No slap on the wrist or $1 million fine.
Note that Pam Bondi was nominated by the current president to become AG in late November, about six weeks before the inauguration. For sure the incoming president and she had talks about a variety of issues. She was part of his defense team in the impeachment proceedings in 2019-2020. It's not like they're just getting to know each other. She likely had her marching orders before Christmas 2024 especially for all of these high-profile cases.
Facebook buying out its potential future competitors is a problem. Google saturating the online ad market and stopping anyone else from competing is a problem. Apple creating issues with being compatible with third-party devices could be seen as a problem.
So the courts want to investigate these issues and figure out if the companies need to be compelled to change or divest from certain markets.
It'll be interesting to see how all of these cases work out.
And there was no reason to make this thread about Trump's battle with the legal system. Thanks.
For sure all of these companies look at the regulations in place and try to figure how to get as close to the line as possible without going over it because if they don't someone else will. But the lines aren't a ditch in the dirt, they are largely conceptual, described in words on paper without some sort of obvious visible demarcation like a strip of chalk on a grass field.
Google allegedly signs non-compete clauses with their AI engineers. Non-compete clauses are effectively unenforceable in the State of California. However there are other jurisdictions where they are valid and enforced. However Google has taken the clever approach to offer a year's worth of salary to departing AI engineers provided they don't go work for the competition. That's very devious in the fast-moving AI industry. Is this illegal? I'm no expert on labor law but at some point someone is going to investigate it.
Anyhow, this most certainly isn't the last we will hear of this particular legal action (i.e., Google, search, Chrome). As I wrote earlier, I fully expect Alphabet to appeal today's ruling. They will likely file that appeal within a week or two and tech media will have more fodder then.
(My apologies if you were being sarcastic in your reply and already knew all of this. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the difference between sarcasm and sincerity in written form.)
Your comments are sometimes entertaining though, very similar to SNL parodies. I'll give you that, please do carry on.
Plenty of successful businesses don’t exhibit this behavior. They’re literally all around you.