DOJ Wins Landmark Antitrust Case, Court Rules Google Illegally Maintained Monopolies in Ad‑Tech Markets
A federal judge has concluded that Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in the markets for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges—core pillars of the open‑web advertising stack—thereby handing the U.S. Department of Justice its most significant victory yet against the company’s ad‑tech empire. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s 205‑page opinion describes how Google tied its DoubleClick for Publishers server to its AdX exchange in ways that foreclosed rivals and harmed publishers and consumers, a practice the court found unlawful under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The decision, reported by Reuters, comes after three weeks of trial testimony and extensive post‑trial briefing.
While Judge Brinkema dismissed claims that Google monopolized advertiser ad‑network services, the ruling still exposes the company to sweeping remedies. Google’s vice‑president of regulatory affairs, Lee‑Anne Mulholland, stressed that the court “agreed our advertiser tools and acquisitions like DoubleClick don’t harm competition,” but said the firm will appeal the publisher‑tool findings, arguing publishers choose its platform for efficiency and effectiveness, as noted in The Verge’s coverage
The remedies phase will now determine how Google must unwind its anticompetitive conduct. DOJ attorneys have signaled they will pursue structural relief—potentially forcing the divestiture of Google Ad Manager or even a spin‑off of the Chrome browser—unless behavioral commitments can restore competition. Industry analysts view the decision as a watershed moment that could reshape digital advertising and embolden regulators examining other vertically integrated tech giants.
Do you believe structural divestitures are necessary to restore fair competition in digital advertising, or would stringent oversight and behavioral rules suffice? Share your perspective below!
