Google's Ad Tech Business Facing Uncertainty After Court Ruling

On Thursday (April 17), Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled against Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) in the antitrust case concerning the company's advertising technology business, casting a shroud of uncertainty over the future of the tech giant’s online advertising business.

Brinkema will now need to determine what remedies to impose on Google to restore fair market competition. The plaintiffs sought to force Google to divest its Ad Manager, which includes the company's publisher ad server and its ad exchange, to restore competition in the market. This outcome is far more likely following Judge Brinkema’s ruling.

This story happening alongside a similar case against Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META), which is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission for allegedly monopolizing social media via its acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014.

This trial against Google began in September 2024, and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit comprise the Department of Justice and attorneys general from eight states. They have argued that Google’s dominance in ad tech has allowed it to charge higher prices and take a larger share of ad sales. The plaintiffs have also accused Google of stifling competition by controlling the technology used to place ads on websites across the internet.

The ruling against Google marks a significant step in one of numerous anti-competitive cases brought against Google in the past few years, both in the US and internationally.

It follows an earlier ruling in August 2024 in which Google was found to have an illegal monopoly in the online search market in the US. That case will move into the remedies phase next week, with a court date of April 21, 2025.

“This is a game-changer,” wrote Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, one of the plaintiffs in both cases.

“As Judge Brinkema writes in her decision, Google was in direct violation of the Sherman Act by dictating how digital ads are sold and the terms under which its rivals can compete. With this victory in hand, we can hopefully work now towards restoring a fair, free, and competitive digital advertising marketplace. This decision is the first step in opening up competition so that Connecticut businesses and consumers will pay less for advertising — and therefore less for goods and services," he continued.

"We will no longer be under the thumb of a gigantic multinational conglomerate.”

US District Judge Amit Mehta, who ruled against Google in the August 2024 case, has considered imposing structural remedies that could involve forcing Google to divest its Chrome business, although Google has argued divestiture would hurt consumers. Instead, the company has suggested allowing browser companies to have multiple default agreements with various search engines.

Regulators have been digging into various aspects of Google's business, including its advertising technology, search practices and mobile operating system.

In addition to the current case, Google is also facing scrutiny from antitrust regulators in Europe, the UK and other jurisdictions. The outcomes of these cases could have far-reaching implications for Google's business model and the tech industry as a whole.

Thursday's ruling signifies a major development in the ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech's market dominance, which echoes efforts to dismantle AT&T’s (NYSE:T) phone monopoly in the 1980s.

The eventual outcome of that case led to AT&T’s breakup into seven independent enterprises, which laid the groundwork for some of today’s major telecommunications and internet services providers, including Verizon (NYSE:VZ) and Lumen Technologies (NYSE:LUMN). It also gave cable companies like Comcast room to expand into internet services. 

Whatever outcome Judge Brinkema decides, the ruling could reshape the online advertising landscape and have far-reaching implications for both the company and the broader tech industry.

Don’t forget to follow us @INN_Technology for real-time news updates!

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.