Introduction
Google was found by a federal judge to have illegally monopolised some online advertising technology markets in a blow to a key part of the company’s business. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found on Thursday (April 17) that the Alphabet Inc. unit violated antitrust law in the markets for advertising exchanges and tools used by websites to sell ad space, known as ad servers. But she said the company didn’t meet the definition of a monopoly for a third market of tools used by advertisers to buy display ads. GetMyIndia.com
“Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising,” Brinkema wrote in the 115-page opinion. For over a decade, Google tied together its publisher ad server and ad exchange through contracts and integrated the technology, “which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets.”
Google Declared Illegal Monopolist Again in Major Ad Tech Antitrust Ruling
The judge found that Google “further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anticompetitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features. In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”
Brinkema said she will set separate court proceedings to determine a possible remedy. The ruling is a second major blow to the embattled tech giant that was already found to have monopolised the online search market in a separate case. In that case, the Justice Department is seeking to force Alphabet to sell off its Chrome browser after winning the landmark ruling over search. The trial on a remedy in that case is set to start Monday in Washington.
The Justice Department and a group of states sued Google in 2023, arguing the company illegally monopolised three separate markets related to the technology used for online display advertising: ad servers, exchanges, and networks. Spokespeople for the Justice Department and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Jonathan Kanter, the Justice Department antitrust chief under former President Joe Biden, said in an interview that the ruling “is a huge victory for antitrust enforcement, the media industry, and the free and open internet. I am extremely proud of our team at DOJ and partners from the state attorneys general for this momentous victory.” “Google is now an illegal monopolist twice over,” Kanter said.
DoubleClick Deal
Much of the Justice Department’s case focused on attacking Google’s past acquisitions, including DoubleClick, which worked with websites to sell ads. Brinkema agreed. “Google’s bolstering of its publisher-facing business through the DoubleClick acquisition helped it establish a dominant position on both sides of the ad tech stack,” she wrote.
Google’s ad tech business benefited from “network effects,” as the more advertiser customers the company had, the more publishers wanted to use its tools, Brinkema added. In addition, the more publishers Google had as customers, the more advertisers wanted to use Google’s services, “thereby creating a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop.”
The Justice Department also sought sanctions against Google for alleged intentional destruction of evidence. “Google’s systemic disregard of the evidentiary rules regarding spoliation of evidence and its misuse of the attorney-client privilege may well be sanctionable,” Brinkema ruled. But because she ruled for the government on the available evidence, sanctions are not necessary.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to label Google’s digital advertising business an illegal monopoly marks a significant escalation in efforts to curb the company’s dominance. Now found to have unlawfully monopolized both search and ad tech markets, Google faces intensifying legal and regulatory scrutiny. The ruling exposes the company to potential structural remedies and signals a broader shift in antitrust enforcement aimed at restoring competition in the digital economy. As the Justice Department and state attorneys general push forward with separate proceedings, the outcome could reshape how digital ads are bought and sold and how power is distributed online.
Gmicapitals.com RaysVeda.com GetMyStartup.com LawCanal.com ABHAYRAY.COM ZinCob.com
