This is a legal blow to the Mountain View giant. In a decision as rare as it is resounding, a US federal court ruled that Google had illegally built and maintained a monopoly in the advertising technology sector. The case, closely scrutinized by regulators around the world, could well pave the way for a partial dismantling of Google's previously tightly controlled advertising model.
A Dual Grip on Ad Servers and Ad Exchanges
The heart of the case concerns two essential cogs in the digital advertising ecosystem: the ad servers used by publishers to manage the display of ads, and ad exchanges, the automated platforms where transactions take place between buyers and sellers of space. The court found that Google had used anticompetitive practices to consolidate its position in these two key segments—creating a lock-in effect that long stifled alternatives.
This ruling now gives antitrust authorities a solid legal basis to consider radical action: forcing Google to divest some of its advertising assets, such as AdX or DoubleClick for Publishers. An idea long debated, but rarely considered at this level of seriousness.
A trial emblematic of an antitrust turning point
Beyond the Google case, this trial is part of a structural shift in technology regulation in the United States. Led by both Republican and Democratic administrations, the fight against dominant positions in tech is becoming a cross-cutting issue, embodying a political desire to regain control of markets that have become overly concentrated.
The parallel is obvious with the action brought against Meta (formerly Facebook) by the Federal Trade Commission. Here too, the accusation concerned a monopoly, this time in the world of social networks. These are all converging signals of an era that is increasingly tolerant of giants with sprawling ambitions.
Google counterattacks, but the ground is shifting
Unsurprisingly, Google immediately contested the ruling, announcing its intention to appeal. The company claims that its services are chosen for their effectiveness and not imposed by abusive practices. Behind the scenes, however, the pressure is mounting: the firm must now deal with an environment where competition is resurgent, driven by new, more agile players determined to shake up the rules of the game.
While Google maintains a classic defense of innovation, performance, and attractive prices, the tone has changed. The time is no longer one of unbridled expansion, but of the constant justification of each lever of domination.
How far will American justice go?
Two scenarios are emerging. The most radical: a forced sale of flagship assets like AdX or DFP, a partial deconstruction of the advertising edifice built by Google. The other, more gradual path would consist of imposing behavioral restrictions, by prohibiting Google from favoring its own products during auctions or locking access to certain key data.
In both cases, the logic is the same: open a market that is too closed, restore a form of transparency in advertising mechanisms, and rebalance the forces at play.
The impact of such a decision goes beyond the circle of adtech players. For small businesses, which often rely on Google Ads for exposure, lower costs and a wider variety of options could be game-changers. For consumers, the promise is more indirect: a more open web, less driven by single, omnipotent algorithms.
0 Comments