Google LLC’s latest antitrust setback in federal court is a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle against tech monopolies, even though it only partially lost its case on online advertising technology.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Alphabet Inc.'s Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in publisher ad servers and ad exchanges. But the court rejected the claim that Google monopolized the advertiser-side, ad-buying tools market—allowing the company to claim partial vindication.
The ruling could provide a road map for the remedies process in future antitrust cases related to technology. More broadly, it will add momentum to the US government’s strict antitrust approach in the tech sector over the last several years.
Google’s advertising technologies, though less visible to consumers than its search engine, form the backbone of internet economics and generate about $30 billion annually. Google’s suite of software, including Google Ad Manager, conducts split-second auctions to place ads each time a user loads a webpage.
The court’s determination that Google deliberately engaged in anticompetitive behavior reveals the systemic nature of Google’s dominance—using its market power in publisher tools and ad exchanges to effectively squeeze out competition.
The implications of this mixed decision are substantial and complex. Structurally, the court rejected allegations concerning past acquisitions, notably DoubleClick in 2008, which could have paved a clearer path toward breaking up Google’s integrated ad tech stack.
Without labeling these acquisitions explicitly unlawful, the court might be more inclined to limit the potential scope of any divestiture remedies. Yet it’s possible that this decision doesn’t eliminate structural remedies entirely, as the interconnectedness of the publisher and advertiser markets may require broad interventions affecting Google’s entire ad-tech framework.
The ruling arrives amid heightened antitrust scrutiny across the technology industry, aligning with the US government’s broader enforcement strategy aimed at reining in monopolistic behaviors that threaten competitive markets and consumer choice.
In addition to Google, the Department of Justice has sued Apple Inc., arguing that the company created barriers for consumers attempting to leave its tightly integrated ecosystem of devices and software. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has sued Amazon.com Inc. for allegedly exploiting small businesses, and Meta Platforms Inc. for stifling competition through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Meta, similar to Google, has argued it faces significant competition from platforms such as TikTok.
These actions represent a significant push by regulators against dominant tech companies. Further, the current batch of significant antitrust cases working through the courts could eventually provide the US Supreme Court an opportunity to reshape antitrust jurisprudence for the digital era.
The political context is also critical. President Donald Trump has signaled his administration’s intention to maintain a tough stance on antitrust enforcement within the tech sector. This resolve persists despite attempts by tech executives to gain his favor and somewhat contrasts with his more favorable approach toward TikTok, even after the Supreme Court’s decision involving the platform earlier this year.
For policymakers and regulators, the latest ruling’s nuances highlight crucial questions: Should remedies focus strictly on conduct-based regulations, or might structural solutions regain prominence? Structural remedies have been less frequently used in recent years, which has left behavioral remedies as the more common approach. However, this ruling may encourage broader consideration of structural approaches, given the significance of the identified monopolistic practices.
Moving forward, the remedy phase presents an essential test for antitrust law’s ability to recalibrate the market without inadvertently harming consumers or stifling legitimate innovation. The Department of Justice’s potential interest in structural changes suggests it may still consider substantial interventions, though crafting a suitable remedy becomes complex without explicit court findings on foundational acquisitions.
Some commentators suggest a holistic remedy targeting the entire ad-tech ecosystem, rather than just the parts in which Google has lost in this antitrust case, might ultimately be necessary, given the intertwined nature of these markets.
As Google prepares its appeal, likely focusing on challenging market definitions and the court’s rejection of a two-sided market analysis, this ruling is as an important indicator for future antitrust actions against the tech industry. Crucially, the case underscores the evolving interpretation of traditional antitrust principles for digital markets, setting precedents that could shape regulatory actions for years.
This case isn’t just about Google or even online advertising technology alone. It’s about ensuring that digital markets remain competitive and innovative—vital for consumers, publishers, and the broader economy. As regulators sharpen their strategies, they must balance aggressive enforcement with preserving the dynamism and consumer benefits tech giants such as Google provide.
The case is US v. Google, E.D. Va., No. 1:23-cv-00108, decided 4/17/25.
This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.
The author used generative AI as a tool to help in the drafting of this article.
Author Information
Nizan Geslevich Packin is a law professor at Baruch College, City University of New York and University of Haifa Faculty of Law.
Write for Us: Author Guidelines
