On Friday, April 17, 2025 a Judge ruled with the Justice Department on Google advertising practices.
United States District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in favor of the Justice Department on charges against Google involving creating a monopoly with publisher ad servers and ad exchange markets. Judge Brinkema also ruled that Google did not create a monopoly in ad markets.
An excerpt from her ruling is as follows:
With the benefit of a three-week bench trial and extensive post-trial filings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that there is a relevant market for open-web display advertiser ad networks, but have proven that Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.
Google has been previously pursued for having a monopoly with its Chrome browser, primarily by being a default browser in phones, tablets, and computers. The Justice Department has asked Judge Amit Mehta to divest Chrome from the parent company.
ANALYSIS
I do not place ads with Google so it is harder for someone like me to determine if there is a true monopoly in this case.
As for Chrome, if competition with other browsers is the goal, this could be worked out without divesting something which they themselves created.
A stealth way Google, as a whole, operates a monopoly is through its acquisitions. Google purchases companies that they could simply work with as a customer or create a partnership project. By going the route of purchasing a company they prevent that company working for a rival or working with a third party against Google’s interests. This is a higher priority over their argument that their company benefits from the acquisition
SOLUTIONS
Judge Brinkema ruled with the Justice Department on Google Advertising Practices on two of three charges. Now the Judge will decide what action to take against Google. In my opinion, if the goal is to create more competition, what is needed is for ad customers to have not only choices available but also be consciously aware of the choices and be allowed to select options.
As for the Chrome browser, an alternative to divesting would be to allow device owners to pre-select a browser from a list with brief descriptions of each. Moving away from having the browser both pre-determined and nearly impossible to replace would be in the best interest of consumers.
As for the monopoly with its acquisitions, here is a list of companies acquired by Google. Look at the names, focus on what they do, and determine for yourself whether markets would be better off if these companies were once again independent and free to pursue their own customers.