A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in the online advertising market, marking a significant victory for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and signalling potential upheaval for the tech giantโs multi-billion-dollar ad empire.
In a ruling issued Thursday, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Google leveraged its dominance in digital ad technology to stifle competition and consolidate power. The decision stems from a DOJ lawsuit targeting Googleโs control over tools that connect publishers with advertisersโa business segment estimated to generate $31 billion annually.
The judgment follows growing antitrust scrutiny of Big Tech and marks the second major court ruling against Google in less than a year. In December 2023, a federal jury found that the companyโs app store practices also violated competition laws. Together with Thursdayโs ruling, these decisions highlight mounting legal challenges that could reshape Googleโs business model and the broader online ecosystem.
Monopoly Maintained Through Ad Tech Integration
At the heart of the case was Googleโs integration of its ad server with its publisher ad exchange, technologies that determine which banner ads appear on websites. The DOJ argued that this vertical integration created a conflict of interest, allowing Google to prefer its services while sidelining competitors.
Judge Brinkema agreed, stating in her 115-page decision that Google had โestablished and protected its monopoly powerโ by tying together these products. Her ruling supports the governmentโs claim that the companyโs dominance deprived rivals of fair competition and ultimately harmed publishers and consumers.
However, the court dismissed another portion of the DOJโs case concerning Googleโs advertiser-side tools and certain acquisitions, including DoubleClick. Brinkema concluded that these actions did not, in themselves, constitute anticompetitive behaviour.
Google Responds, DOJ Silent
In a statement, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Googleโs Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, acknowledged the mixed outcome.
โWe won half of this case, and we will appeal the other half,โ she said. โThe Court found that our advertiser tools and acquisitions donโt harm competition. We disagree with the Courtโs decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and choose Google because our tools are simple, affordable, and effective.โ
The Justice Department has not yet responded to requests for comment.
Google had previously argued that the DOJโs case was misguided, as it risked undermining innovation, raising advertising costs, and harming small businesses. But the court found otherwise, with Brinkema writing that Googleโs practices โsubstantially harmed Googleโs publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.โ
Broader Implications for Big Tech
This ruling is part of a broader regulatory push to rein in the power of dominant tech firms. In addition to the DOJโs actions against Google, U.S. antitrust regulators have also launched major lawsuits against Meta, Apple, and Amazon. Earlier this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in a separate case involving the FTCโs claims that the company acquired potential rivals to suppress competition.
Thursdayโs ruling could result in the forced divestiture of parts of Googleโs advertising business, pending appeals. Legal experts suggest that while enforcement actions could take years to resolve, the judgment marks a clear signal that U.S. courts are increasingly willing to challenge Silicon Valleyโs market power.
