Google created an illegal monopoly in the online advertising industry, a Federal judge ruled. Judge Leonie Brinkema sided with the Department of Justice in finding that the company engaged in anti-competitive practices that allowed it to dominate critical components of the digital ad market for more than a decade.
Dig deeper: Google adtech antitrust trial: Everything you need to know
The ruling found:
- Google “willfully engaged in anticompetitive acts” to control the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets.
- Google illegally tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contracts and technical integration.
- Google’s practices “substantially harmed” publishers and users across the web.
The decision is Google’s second significant antitrust defeat. Last fall, it lost a case about its search monopoly case. The ruling is expected to fundamentally reshape online advertising
The Department of Justice argued that through acquisitions and anticompetitive conduct, Google seized control of the full advertising technology stack: the tools advertisers and publishers buy and sell ads and the exchange that connects them.
Google denied the claims, arguing that several ad companies compete in the space, a mixture of tools are used so they don’t get the full fees, that their fees are lower than the industry average and that small businesses will suffer the most if they lose this case.
Google released an official response on X, saying some of their tools don’t harm competition and that they intend to appeal the Court’s decision.
What’s next. This ruling comes as Google and the DOJ prepare for the remedies phase of the search monopoly case, where the government has proposed breaking up Google by spinning off Chrome and forcing it to syndicate search results.
The Court must now determine appropriate remedies for Google’s ad tech monopoly violations, potentially involving structural changes to its advertising business.
Dig deeper: 7 weak spots in Google’s defense against DOJ antitrust claims
The post Google loses advertising monopoly case appeared first on MarTech.