By Mateusz Rumiński, VP of Product, PrimeAudience
Last year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) accused Google of illegally monopolising key parts of the digital advertising ecosystem. The core issue in the antitrust case brought to court by the DOJ was that Google operated the buy-side tools used by advertisers, the sell-side tools used by publishers, and the ad exchange in between.
In addition, the DOJ alleged that Google had restricted competition by favoring its own ad exchange and manipulating auction dynamics to benefit its services, making it difficult for rival platforms to compete fairly.
Last week, a US federal judge in Virginia ruled that Google had indeed illegally built a monopoly over the online advertising industry. Having lost this case, and a separate antitrust case concerning its search business, Google now faces a real threat of federal prosecutors breaking up the company. The court hasn’t yet ruled on final remedies (as of April 2025), but forced divestitures are on the table, potentially leading to the breakup of Google’s ad business.
The DOJ is seeking structural changes, including spinning off parts of Google’s ad tech operations or separating its ad exchange from other products. What once seemed like a doubtful possibility is now being treated very seriously.
A personal perspective
For many, the court ruling did not come as a big surprise, as there is little doubt that Google holds a dominant position across multiple layers of the ad tech ecosystem.
It will take some time to determine the exact remedies. Google will, of course, appeal the ruling and do everything it can to avoid the break-up of its company. Meanwhile, the world of digital marketing is relentless in its rapid evolution. By the time any remedies are enforced, we may live in a different world in terms of how people behave online.
In addition, devising these remedies won’t be straightforward. Remedies have to be significant enough not only to punish Google’s practices, but also to discourage other parties from conducting themselves in a similar way. However, should these remedies go as far as enforced divestitures, it is imperative not to make the same mistake as with Google’s acquisition of Doubleclick in 2007, i.e. any sale shouldn’t unwittingly enable the creation of a new monopoly.
Unfortunately, many would argue that the damage to the competition on the open internet has already been done. Ensuring that the competitive playing field is preserved as we move forward towards new market standards must be a top priority.
Clever cookies?
To avoid further regulatory backlash, Google has reversed its decision to deprecate third-party cookies on its Chrome browser, pledging to protect privacy without reinforcing its market control. Considering the developments surrounding Google’s ad business, this announcement is not as surprising as it would have been a couple of months ago.
In some ways, this is good news, as it is better to be certain of what’s on the table than to live in uncertainty, as we have done for the last couple of years. It allows ad tech vendors to allocate resources effectively, rather than betting on one of the alternative future scenarios.
The future of advertising
The work on the Privacy Sandbox has been a spectacular effort by a range of companies for over four years. The brightest engineering minds have tried to tackle the seemingly impossible task of balancing user privacy protection with advertising utility for a thriving open web.
This effort was not in vain. Advertisers learned how to use and benefit from first-party data and other privacy-preserving means of targeting and measurement.
Moving forward, it is imperative that the industry organisations, such as IAB Tech Lab, step in to create standards that elevate user privacy, while improving personalisation possibilities. In the end, no single company (like Google) should be powerful enough to decide “what’s good” for the ecosystem.
*PrimeAudience is a client of Bluestripe Communications, owned by Bluestripe Group, publisher of NDA
