Google Loses Second U.S. Antitrust Case, Advertising is Illegal Monopoly

For the second time in less than a year, a U.S. federal judge has ruled that Google owns an illegal monopoly, this time in online advertising.

“With the benefit of a three-week bench trial and extensive post-trial filings, the `Court finds that Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,” U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema writes in her ruling. “Having found Google liable, the Court will set a briefing schedule and hearing date to determine the appropriate remedies for these antitrust violations.”

Judge Brinkema did toss aside one of the allegations presented by the U.S. Department of Justice and 17 U.S. states that were allied against Google: They “failed to prove that there is a relevant market for open-web display advertiser ad networks,” and thus the online giant was not found to have a monopoly there.

This ruling follows a blockbuster August 2024 ruling in which Google was found to be operating an illegal monopoly in online search. In that case, Google might be forced to divest itself of some key businesses, including Chrome and perhaps Android, and end anticompetitive partnerships. But these two cases are also related, and the advertising business that’s driven by Google’s search business generates about 75 percent of the company’s overall revenues.

The ruling against Google in the antitrust case is also similar to the ruling in the online search case: In both, the firm was found to have illegally maintained and extended a monopoly, harming competitors, partners, and customers. And it’s possible that Judge Brinkema will force Google to spin off some of its internal businesses, in this case DoubleClick, the advertising company is seized out from under Microsoft in 2008.

Judge Brinkema’s ruling is notably critical of Google, which deleted evidence of its crimes after being apprised of the federal investigation. The Judge also ruled that Google and its lawyers misused attorney-client privilege by inappropriately categorizing communications between the two as privileged.

“Plaintiffs have proven that 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.” the Judge notes in the 115-page ruling’s conclusion. “For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets. 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. Accordingly, Google is liable under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.”

The Judge has asked both sides to submit a joint proposed schedule for a remedy hearing, after which she will impose sanction to address Google’s crimes.