Last week, a federal judge ruled that Google was violating antitrust laws. The company willfully obtained and sustained monopoly power in the advertising technology market. This historic ruling follows on complaints brought by the U.S. government and eight different states. In that complaint, they charged the tech behemoth with illegally monopolizing the general internet search market and unlawfully tying together two key parts of its ad tech stack.
The judge’s order leaves no doubt that Google abused its monopolistic clout in the publisher-side ad tech. This most especially relates to its walled gardens, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) and AdX. Unfortunately, as has been done successfully by Google with AdWords and DoubleClick, combining these two systems creates a huge competitive moat. This change affects exchanges that help advertisers buy display ads on the open web. These networks function independently of closed, walled-garden ecosystems like Facebook, Instagram, and Google Search.
The complaints generally claim that Google’s practices violate the Sherman Act, a law that outlaws monopolistic behavior and competition that is unfair in nature. The court has come down hard against these practices. According to its decision, the order will restore healthy competition in the digital advertising market.
Following the ruling, the court will set a schedule for further briefing. It will establish a date for a hearing on what remedies should be put in place for these violations. The judge has not ordered specific remedies to date. Experts believe that he will likely require doomsday-level actions such as having Google divest pieces of its advertising empire or sell Google Ad Manager. This toolset consists of the AdX ad exchange and DFP, now known as Google Ad Manager. These tools are vital for publishers in the ad tech ecosystem.
Those possible remedies would drastically change the digital advertising ecosystem today. They could require Google to break apart pieces of its dominant ad stack. We expect these exciting changes to play out in the second half of 2025. The judge will likely order formal remedies informed by the findings in this case.
