US judge has ruled that tech giant Google holds a monopoly in the online advertising technology sector. The decision follows a lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice, alongside 17 states, accusing Google of unlawfully dominating the systems that determine which adverts appear online and where they are placed.
This marks the second antitrust defeat for Google within a year, after it was previously found to have monopolised online search. The company has stated its intention to appeal the ruling.
“Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective,” said Lee-Ann Mulholland, Google’s head of regulatory affairs.
However, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema concluded that Google had “wilfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts” that allowed it to “acquire and maintain monopoly power” in the advertising technology market.
“This exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” she added.
The court found against Google on two counts, while dismissing a third.
“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” Ms Mulholland said. “The court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don’t harm competition.”
The ruling is being seen as a major victory for US antitrust regulators. Laura Phillips-Sawyer, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, said: “It signals that not only are agencies willing to prosecute but also that judges are willing to enforce the law against big tech firms.”
She emphasised that the judgement sets a key legal precedent, one likely to influence corporate decision-making across the United States.
Google’s legal team argued that the case placed too much focus on historical actions, overlooking the presence of other major players in ad tech, including Amazon.
Jason Kint, head of the trade group Digital Content Next, which represents online publishers, stated: “Google has repeatedly used its market power to self-preference its own products, stifling innovation and depriving premium publishers worldwide of critical revenue needed to sustain high-quality journalism and entertainment.”
Google currently operates across both the buying and selling sides of the online ad market and also owns a key exchange that connects advertisers with publishers.
While the judgement is unlikely to result in visible changes for internet users, it could reshape the financial relationships within the advertising ecosystem. Anupam Chander, professor of law and technology at Georgetown University, noted it affects “the division of monies between advertisers, publishers, and ad service providers”.
“The judge seems willing to order structural changes in Google’s ad exchange practices, which may affect Google’s bottom line somewhat, but don’t seem to necessarily threaten its core value proposition as an advertising middleman,” he said.
This case forms part of a broader series of antitrust actions targeting Google, with the US government pushing for a potential breakup of the tech giant’s parent company, Alphabet — a move that could include divesting platforms such as the Chrome browser.
According to John Kwoka, professor of economics at Northeastern University, the case will now enter a second phase focused on remedies, which could result in Alphabet being broken up.
Across the Atlantic, the UK’s competition watchdog also provisionally found in September that Google had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour to maintain dominance in the online advertising technology market.
