Judge Rules Against Google in Monopoly Bombshell

A federal judge has ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in online advertising technology, potentially forcing the tech giant to sell off significant portions of its business under President Trump’s Justice Department.

Key Takeaways

Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing publisher ad servers and ad exchanges
Google’s practice of forcing websites to use its bundled ad tools was deemed anticompetitive and harmful to publishers, advertisers, and consumers
The ruling followed a 15-day trial in September 2024 after a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and several state Attorneys General in January 2023
Attorney General Pamela Bondi called the decision “a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square”
Google may be forced to sell parts of its advertising technology business as a remedy for its illegal conduct

Federal Court Delivers Blow to Google’s Ad Empire

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has determined that Google violated antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly over critical online advertising technology. Judge Leonie Brinkema issued the ruling after examining evidence that Google systematically dominated publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, effectively controlling how websites monetize their content. The decision marks a significant victory for the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division under President Trump’s administration, which has prioritized reining in Big Tech’s market power.

The case specifically addressed Google’s practices in the digital advertising marketplace, where the company has built a comprehensive system that handles nearly every aspect of online ad placement. According to court documents, Google forced publishers to use its ad server (DFP) to access real-time bids from its ad exchange (AdX), creating an ecosystem that excluded competitors and limited options for website owners trying to monetize their content.

Google’s Anticompetitive Tactics Exposed

Judge Brinkema’s ruling identified several specific anticompetitive behaviors that Google engaged in over a 15-year period. The company acquired potential competitors, manipulated ad auctions, and implemented technical restrictions that eliminated rivals in the advertising technology market. The case revealed that Google systematically degraded service quality to maintain internal advantages, directly harming publishers, advertisers, and ultimately consumers who rely on an open internet.

“In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” said Judge Brinkema.

The court found that Google’s tactics prevented innovation in the ad tech industry by creating artificial barriers to entry. By tying its ad server and exchange products together, the company effectively blocked publishers from using alternative ad tech providers, even when those providers might have offered better terms or more innovative solutions. This consolidation of power allowed Google to extract higher fees from both publishers and advertisers while limiting the development of new technologies.

US Judge rules Google acted illegally in the big monopoly case https://t.co/lUzIeQ9Yie

— Barry Schwartz (@rustybrick) April 17, 2025

Trump Administration Celebrates Victory

The Department of Justice, which filed the lawsuit in January 2023 alongside several state Attorneys General, hailed the decision as a major win in the government’s efforts to ensure fair competition in digital markets. The case represents one of the most significant antitrust victories in decades and aligns with President Trump’s stated goal of holding tech companies accountable for monopolistic practices.

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said.

Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater was equally emphatic about the importance of the ruling, stating that “The Court’s ruling is clear: Google is a monopolist and has abused its monopoly power.” The decision comes after a focused 15-day trial in September 2024, where the government presented extensive evidence of Google’s market manipulation and anticompetitive practices spanning more than a decade.

Potential Remedies and Business Impact

While the ruling clearly establishes Google’s liability, the court has yet to determine what remedies will be imposed. Legal experts suggest that Google could be forced to sell significant portions of its advertising technology business to restore competition to the market. Such a structural remedy would represent one of the most consequential antitrust interventions in recent history, potentially reshaping the $1.86 trillion company’s business model and its dominant position in the digital advertising ecosystem.

The case specifically targeted Google’s publisher ad server and ad exchange businesses, which form the backbone of how websites monetize their content. The court dismissed claims related to Google’s advertiser tools, narrowing the focus to the publisher side of the equation. This targeted approach may inform how Judge Brinkema structures the remedies phase, potentially allowing for surgical intervention rather than broader restructuring of Google’s entire advertising business.