Clinton-Appointed Judge Deals Crushing Antitrust Blow To Google’s Ad Empire

A federal judge ruled Thursday that Google has illegally monopolized the online advertising technology market, handing the Department of Justice a major win in its antitrust crackdown on Big Tech.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, a Clinton-era appointee, ruled that Google used anticompetitive practices to dominate the digital ad space, particularly in publisher ad servers and ad exchanges — two crucial markets that underpin most online ad transactions. The DOJ has long alleged Google’s ad 💼Business squeezes out competition, allowing the company to control the ad supply chain from both the buy and sell sides.

“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 (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act,” the judge wrote in her memorandum opinion. “Having found Google liable, the Court will set a briefing schedule and hearing date to determine appropriate remedies for these antitrust violations.”

Brinkema found that Google violated both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally tethering Google Ad Exchange (AdX) to its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, making it nearly impossible for publishers and advertisers to avoid using both. The Justice Department and 17 other states argued the arrangement forced higher prices on advertisers and reduced revenue for publishers, while giving Google an unfair edge over rivals like Amazon and Comcast.

The ruling opens the door for a potential forced breakup of Google’s ad tech empire — something DOJ attorneys have advocated for since filing the suit in 2023. Prosecutors are expected to press for the sale of Google Ad Manager, which includes both the publish ad server and ad exchange at the center of the case.

“ order the divestiture of, at minimum, the Google Ad Manager suite, including both Google’s publisher and ad server, DFP, and Google’s ad exchange, AdX, along with any additional structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm,” the DOJ’s amended complaint from 2023 reads.

In her opinion, Brinkema emphasized the impact of Google’s conduct not just on competitors, but also on internet users who unknowingly pay the price through inflated ad costs and diminished innovation.

“This exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” she wrote.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of regulatory affairs at Google, told the Daily Caller News Foundation the company plans to appeal the decision.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half. The Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don’t harm competition,” Mulholland said. “We disagree with the Court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”

Dan Taylor, vice president of global ads at Google, previously argued that breaking up its ad 💼Business would undermine free digital services and hurt small publishers.

“DOJ is doubling down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow,” Taylor wrote in a 2023 article for The Keyword, Google’s official blog. “In seeking to reverse , DOJ is attempting to rewrite history at the expense of publishers, advertisers and internet users. Both of these acquisitions enabled us to invest heavily in developing new and innovative advertising technologies.”

This marks the second time in under a year that a federal court has ruled against Google in a major antitrust case. In August, the company was found to have illegally preserved its search dominance by locking in default placements on mobile devices.

The ruling against Google also comes the same week Meta’s own antitrust case went to trial, with the Federal Trade Commission accusing the company of monopolistic behavior in its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014, respectively.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include comment from Google.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].