Google Loses Big in Landmark Monopoly Case

Judges gavel on a wooden block courtroom setting — Legislation and law. Judge's gavel. Procedure for making laws. Сourt hearing. Judge’s verdict. Symbol law. Constitutional court.

Google has suffered a major legal defeat as a federal judge ruled the tech giant illegally monopolized crucial online advertising markets, potentially forcing the company to restructure its $200 billion advertising business.

Key Takeaways

Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled Google violated antitrust laws by monopolizing publisher ad server and ad exchange markets
Google forced websites to use its advertising tools, stifling competition and innovation in the digital ad space
The ruling follows a 15-day trial that concluded in September 2024, stemming from a January 2023 lawsuit
Google faces potential remedies that could include selling parts of its advertising technology business
The Justice Department hailed the decision as a landmark victory against Big Tech monopolistic practices

Federal Court Delivers Crushing Blow to Google’s Ad Empire

In a watershed moment for American antitrust enforcement, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has ruled that Google illegally maintained monopolies in two crucial online advertising technology markets. The tech giant was found to have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act through anticompetitive practices that maintained its dominance over publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, though claims regarding advertiser tools were dismissed. The ruling represents a significant victory for the Department of Justice and several state Attorneys General who initiated the case in January 2023.

The court’s decision focused particularly on how Google tied together its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) products in ways that effectively forced websites to use Google’s advertising ecosystem. By establishing this forced integration, Google successfully pushed competitors out of the market and consolidated its control over the digital advertising landscape. The ruling indicated that these practices substantially harmed not only Google’s rivals but also publishers, advertisers, and ultimately consumers who rely on an open internet.

Trump Administration Claims Victory Against Big Tech Overreach

Attorney General Pamela Bondi emphasized the significance of the ruling as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to curtail the power of technology giants. The Justice Department has framed the decision as a decisive step toward preventing Google from monopolizing digital spaces where Americans increasingly receive information and conduct business. This aligns with President Trump’s longstanding criticisms of major technology companies and their influence over American discourse.

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater pulled no punches in her assessment of Google’s conduct, stating that the company had abused its monopoly power to censor and deplatform American voices while concealing evidence of its illegal activities. The strong language from Justice Department officials indicates that the administration views this case as just one component of a larger effort to address perceived abuses by technology companies that dominate crucial digital infrastructure.

Google’s 15-Year Monopolistic Strategy Exposed

Evidence presented during the 15-day trial revealed that Google engaged in a systematic strategy spanning more than 15 years to eliminate competition in the digital advertising market. This included strategic acquisitions of potential competitors, manipulation of auction mechanisms, and the creation of technological barriers that effectively locked publishers into Google’s ecosystem. These tactics allowed Google to maintain dominance even when competitors offered superior technology or more favorable terms.

“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,” Judge Brinkema stated in her ruling.

The court found that publishers were required to use Google’s ad server (DFP) to access real-time bids from its ad exchange (AdX), creating a closed system that significantly limited alternatives. This arrangement not only stifled competition but also hampered innovation in the advertising technology space. Even more damaging to consumers, the ruling indicated that Google deliberately degraded service quality in certain areas to maintain internal advantages, prioritizing its monopolistic position over technological advancement and market efficiency.

US Judge rules Google acted illegally in the big monopoly case https://t.co/lUzIeQ9Yie

— Barry Schwartz (@rustybrick) April 17, 2025

Potential Consequences and Remedies

With liability now established, Judge Brinkema will determine appropriate remedies to address Google’s antitrust violations. These could range from behavioral restrictions on how Google operates its advertising business to more structural remedies, potentially including the divestiture of parts of its advertising technology stack. Industry analysts suggest that forcing Google to sell portions of its advertising business would represent the most significant restructuring of a major technology company since the antitrust cases against Microsoft in the late 1990s.

The ruling comes at a particularly challenging time for Google, which is already facing multiple other antitrust challenges in both the United States and Europe. With President Trump’s administration showing a strong interest in reining in the power of major technology platforms, this decision could signal the beginning of more aggressive enforcement actions against dominant digital gatekeepers. The case also highlights the bipartisan nature of concerns about Big Tech power, as the lawsuit originated under the previous administration but has been vigorously pursued under President Trump’s Justice Department.