Google Slammed in Court Over Monopoly Tactics

Judge's gavel and "GUILTY" sign on wooden table.

A federal judge has ruled Google maintains an illegal monopoly in online advertising technology, dealing a significant blow to the tech giant that could force it to divest parts of its lucrative ad 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 tools to access advertisers, stifling competition and harming publishers and consumers.
The ruling followed a 15-day trial in September 2024 after a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and several states in January 2023.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi called it “a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square.”
The judge will determine remedies that could include forcing Google to sell parts of its advertising business.

Judge Finds Google’s Ad Practices Violated Sherman Act

In a ruling that could reshape the digital advertising landscape, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that Google has illegally maintained a monopoly over crucial online advertising technologies. The decision, announced Thursday, specifically found Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing publisher ad servers and ad exchange markets, though claims regarding advertiser tools were dismissed. The case marks another significant legal challenge to Big Tech under President Trump’s administration.

The court ruling follows a 15-day trial in September 2024 stemming from a January 2023 lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and multiple state Attorneys General. According to the judge’s findings, Google engaged in anticompetitive tactics over a 15-year period, including strategic acquisitions and auction manipulation designed to eliminate or neutralize competitors in the ad tech market. These actions ultimately harmed publishers, advertisers, and consumers while allowing Google to maintain its dominant position.

How Google Maintained Its Monopoly

At the heart of the case was Google’s practice of tying together its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in ways that forced websites to use Google’s tools exclusively. The court found that Google required publishers to use its ad server to access real-time bids from its ad exchange, effectively limiting competition and publisher options. This integration enabled Google to charge higher fees and take larger shares of advertising sales while preventing competitors from gaining market share.

“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,” said Judge Brinkema.

The ruling detailed how Google’s monopolistic practices stifled innovation and diminished service quality in the advertising technology industry. By degrading service quality to maintain internal advantages, Google’s actions negatively impacted the entire ecosystem. The judge concluded that Google’s conduct prevented the development of competing technologies that might have better served the needs of publishers, advertisers, and ultimately consumers of digital content.

Trump Administration Hails Victory

The Biden administration initially filed the case, but the Trump administration’s Department of Justice pursued it vigorously to conclusion. Attorney General Pamela Bondi celebrated the verdict as a major win in the government’s efforts to prevent Google from controlling the digital landscape. The ruling aligns with President Trump’s frequently stated concerns about the power of major technology companies and their influence over information access.

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

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater added to this sentiment, stating, “The Court’s ruling is clear: Google is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power.” She further accused Google of censoring American voices and concealing information about its illegal conduct—allegations that resonate with many conservatives who have long complained about tech platforms’ content moderation practices and perceived bias against conservative viewpoints.

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

The ruling represents only the first phase of the case. Judge Brinkema will now determine appropriate remedies to address Google’s anticompetitive behavior. These measures could be far-reaching, potentially including forcing Google to divest significant portions of its advertising technology business. Such structural changes would fundamentally alter Google’s business model, which generated $237.9 billion in advertising revenue last year—approximately 78% of its total revenue.

This case marks Google’s second major antitrust loss in recent months. The company also faces potential remedies in a separate monopolization case regarding its search business. Together, these legal challenges could result in the most significant government-mandated restructuring of a major American company since the breakup of AT&T in the 1980s. The final outcome will likely shape the digital advertising landscape for years to come and could influence how other tech giants operate in the market.