Google’s stronghold on the tech industry appears increasingly unstable after two significant antitrust defeats within the past year. On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that the tech giant has maintained an unlawful monopoly in advertising technology. This decision follows an earlier ruling, just eight months prior, in which a separate judge found Google guilty of violating antitrust laws through its monopoly over online search.
As the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to push for structural remedies, both sides are preparing for another court battle next week focused on the appropriate penalties in the search monopoly case.
“It’s a massive blow to Google,” said Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner of the antitrust law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner. “There’s no avoiding that conclusion.”
Shinder emphasized the magnitude of the ruling, adding, “Two of the pillars of its power over the internet and the adjacent ecosystems that surround the internet … have been declared unlawful and have a serious cloud over their future.”
In the latest case, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema concluded that Google holds monopolistic control over two distinct areas in the advertising technology sector. Ad tech serves as the digital infrastructure connecting publishers and advertisers to sell and purchase ad space.
Judge Brinkema found that Google dominated both the market for publisher tools and the ad exchange system that links publishers with advertisers. While simply dominating a market is not inherently illegal, Brinkema determined that Google crossed the legal line by tying its ad tech products together and enacting policies that stifled competition. These actions, the judge ruled, allowed Google to gain and maintain its monopoly in violation of antitrust law.
According to Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, “Google will fight this, but it was clearly a gut punch, and they’re going to have to go back to the drawing board to look at business model tweaks, depending on what the appeal process looks like.” He also noted, “I don’t believe it structurally changes their business model, but it clearly is a sign that they’re going to have to adjust their advertising strategy.”
Despite the defeat, Google cited parts of the ruling as a partial win. Brinkema did not find that Google had created a monopoly in a separate market for advertisers, nor did she conclude that Google’s past acquisitions in the ad tech space were anticompetitive. These findings could potentially limit the severity of the remedies the court may impose.
Former Federal Trade Commission Chair William Kovacic explained, “It will tend to moderate remedy rather than to lay a foundation for a bolder remedy.” He added, “At the same time, this is the second time in a short while that a court, indeed a thoughtful judge in both cases, has decided that they did have monopoly power and that they used it improperly.”
Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, announced the company’s plans to appeal the unfavorable portions of the ruling. “We disagree with the Court’s decision regarding our publisher tools,” she said in a statement. “Publishers have many options, and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”
The company also intends to challenge the previous ruling related to its search engine. In that case, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta determined that Google maintained its dominance in online search through exclusive contracts with device manufacturers and web browsers.
Before Google can proceed with appeals, it must first confront the DOJ in court once again. This time, the dispute will focus on the appropriate remedies for Google’s search engine monopoly. That hearing is expected to last three weeks, with Judge Mehta aiming to deliver a verdict by August.
As part of the DOJ’s proposed remedies, the government has asked the court to require Google to divest from Chrome, arguing that its control of the web browser blocks fair market access. If that fails to sufficiently limit Google’s dominance, the DOJ has also floated the idea of separating Android from Google’s other operations.
Initially, there was uncertainty about whether the Trump administration would continue pushing for such drastic measures. Last fall, President Trump expressed skepticism about breaking up Google, voicing concerns that it could inadvertently strengthen China.
Nonetheless, last month the Trump-era DOJ confirmed it is still actively seeking to dismantle Google’s control over Chrome.
Google has strongly opposed these proposals, arguing that they extend beyond the legal scope of the case and could harm both consumers and innovation. In a pretrial brief filed Monday, the company asserted that Chrome and Android are closely integrated into Google’s core systems.
“Their result-oriented purpose is to force consumers, browser developers, and sellers of Android mobile devices to use rival search engines—even though rivals are demonstrably inferior to Google and consumers overwhelmingly prefer Google,” the brief stated.
While the ad tech and search cases are legally distinct, their overlapping nature may influence the court’s thinking on remedies. Kovacic remarked, “I’m wondering if there will be some effort in the search case, and later in this one, to think about what solution should the court be looking for in light of what’s happened in the ad tech case.”
Jariel Rendell, a partner at Jenner & Block who formerly worked in the DOJ’s antitrust division, highlighted the broader implications of the twin decisions against Google. “For the first time, the Antitrust Division sued the same company in two different cases, in two different courts, over two distinct sets of alleged antitrust violations — and litigated both cases simultaneously,” he said in a statement. “And the Division won both.”
Rendell added, “Despite resource constraints, they’re now better positioned — and more emboldened — to take on even bigger antitrust challenges.”
These rulings against Google reflect a wider trend of legal action targeting major tech companies. Over the past few years, the DOJ and the FTC have launched multiple high-profile cases against firms such as Amazon, Apple, and Meta.
Just this week, Meta found itself in the courtroom as CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent three days testifying about the company’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. Analysts suggest the recent ruling against Google further intensifies the scrutiny facing all of Big Tech.
“It adds to the overhang that Google, Meta, Apple, Amazon are facing in the Beltway,” Ives said. “The walls are caving in. The strong have gotten stronger in Big Tech, but the regulatory headwinds are there.”
He concluded, “It’s not just going to be about paying fines. They’re going to have to tweak some of their business models, open up to third parties, and there clearly could be an impact there.”