“The anti-trust tides have turned. What decision of a judge on the “monopoly” of Google on ad-tech means

In another major legal hit in Google, a federal judge ruled on Thursday that the research giant held an illegal monopoly on certain advertising technologies, a decision that could reshape the online advertising business.

J. Judge Léonie Brinkema of the American District Court of the Oriental District of Virginia said in a decision that Google had illegally maintained and had acquired a monopoly in two markets for advertising technology – the publisher’s advertising servers and the announcement market.

But in a partial victory for Google, the antitrust executors have not proven that the company organized a monopoly in the advertising networks of the advertiser, said the judge.

The highly anticipated decision could reconfigure the online advertising company on which websites of websites are based to finance content creation. He also underlines how the American government has tried to slow down the power of Big Tech, which collects a data mine on its users to feed its advertising activities.

Google’s anti -competitive driving “has substantially harmed the customers of Google publishers, in the competitive process and, ultimately, information consumers on the open web,” the judge in the 115 -page decision wrote. She described digital advertisements such as “Internet blood” which allowed people to use some of the most popular websites in the world without paying subscription fees.

The decision marks the last legal setback for Google. In August, a judge ruled in a separate case that Google maintained a monopoly in online research.

The media industry welcomed the decision, arguing that Google’s monopoly forced publishers to use its services and that the lack of competition has led to less advertising dollars.

“Publishers are excited because they hope to get more money for what they sell, and advertisers should also be happy, because they will have to pay less. This will be the goal of restoring competition,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, professor at the Vanderbilt Law School who studies antitrust law.

However, antitrust experts have said that the effect of journalism decision and advertisers will depend on how the judge decides to restore competition.

The judge did not decide on potential remedies, which could force the sale of his Chrome web browser. Google plans to call on the two decisions.

The last decision comes the same week as a historic antitrust trial between the Facebook Meta parent company and the Federal Trade Commission launched.

“The situation as a whole is clear: the antitrust tides have turned against Google and other digital advertising giants,” said Evelyn Mitchell-Wolf, main analyst at Emarketer, in a press release.

In 2023, the United States Ministry of Justice and several states, including California, continued Google, alleging that the technology company has engaged in illegal behavior to crush its competition in advertising technology. Google’s growing control over advertising technology has led to website creators to earn less money and advertisers by paying more, according to the trial.

Publishers use advertising technology products to sell ads to companies that market their online products to potentially reach more customers. Advertisers also use tools to bid on online advertising space, indicating to technological companies such as Google how ready to pay to display their ads on websites.

Website publishers such as the media depend strongly on advertising dollars to finance their companies and the creation of content. Digital display advertising has generated more than $ 20 billion in income per year for American publishers, the trial said.

The trial also allegedly alleged that competition in the advertising technology space is “broken” because Google had bought its rivals and used tactics that intimidated publishers and advertisers to use its tools.

Google controls the popular advertising technology services that most of the main publishers use to sell announcements and that companies use to buy ads. The company also manages what is called an exchange of ads that helps publishers with advertisers who are in competition with each other to buy available advertising spaces.

In addition, Google collects precious data on its users, allowing advertisers to target people according to the location, interests and what they are looking for.

Because Google exercises so much power over online advertising, the company was able to establish rules and manipulate the system so that the competitors benefited and suffered rivals, alleged the Ministry of Justice in its trial. It retains approximately 35% of each dollar spent on digital advertising.

In the decision, the judge said that Google forced its customers to use its product by linking its advertising server together and its exchange of announcements. The judge could order Google to modify policies that have prevented publishers from using other advertising technology products.

“Google’s monopoly tactics – this time on the advertising market – set out the content creators of the income they deserve and need to maintain quality journalism. Today is a big day for our industry,” said Danielle Coffey, president and chief executive officer of the news / media alliance, a commercial group representing the media, in a press release.

Google, on the other hand, says that it has rivals. During the trial, Google lawyers argued that the government has concentrated its case too closely on certain ads displayed on websites, ignoring competition from the technology giant with social media platforms, streaming services and electronic commerce such as Amazon.

“We have won half of this case and we will call on the other half,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice-president of Google regulatory affairs. “We do not agree with the decision of the Court concerning our publisher tools. The publishers have many options and they choose Google because our advertising technology tools are simple, affordable and effective.”

The Battle of the Court presented business leaders, notably Neal Mohan, CEO of YouTube, belonging to Google, who declared that Google expanded the AD Tech tools which it offered in response to customer requests.

Mohan worked in the online advertising company DoubleClick and joined Google after closing its acquisition of the company for more than $ 3 billion in 2008.

The purchase by Google de DoubleClick, who offered services that helped advertisers and publishers manage and follow online advertisements, helped Google develop. While publishers were looking for means of using Google products, the research company also bought potential threats such as Admeld who helped publishers get better prices for their advertising space.

Although the judge can always order Google to go beyond these acquisitions, antitrust experts say that it is less likely than other possible corrective.

Indeed, the court noted that the antitrust executors had not proven that the acquisitions of DoubleClick and Admeld de Google were anti -competitive, even if they helped the company to win a monopoly on two advertising technology markets.

“Structural remedies like this are somewhat disadvantaged. They are considered a little drastic, and that is why I would put [the likelihood] Maybe less than 50% but not at all impossible, “said Allensworth.