Meta’s not the only Big Tech company in the hot seat this week. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google liable for illegally monopolizing two online advertising technology markets: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges. This comes less than a year after another federal judge ruled that the company had a monopoly in online search. Google disagrees with the court’s decision and plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that publishers choose Google over other options because its tech tools are “simple, affordable, and effective.”

As we’ve said before, the impact of these cases won’t be fully realized until the remedies stage, which may take years to play out. Any order to break up Google will spend time in the court of appeals and potentially go to the Supreme Court. When we surveyed consumers about Google’s illegal monopolies, only 18% said they “believe that Google will have to break up.”

The Google Era Gives Way To A Google Overhaul

Judge Brinkema’s ruling, paired with Judge Amit Mehta’s finding that Google maintains an illegal search monopoly, raises the likelihood of Google’s overhaul. The Department of Justice specifically requested divestment of Google Ad Manager, which includes its publisher ad exchange and ad server. At least, Google will be compelled to not destroy evidence of its monopolization going forward.

According to Judge Brinkema, “Google’s systemic disregard of the evidentiary rules regarding spoliation of evidence and its misuse of the attorney-client privilege may well be sanctionable.” In addition, Google’s publisher adtech could be restructured by separating its ad server from its ad exchange, opening the loop between two products that have been tied to competition’s detriment.

Publishers Can Expect (Eventual) Changes To The Sell-Side Adtech Ecosystem

This ruling heightens (the already substantial) counterparty risk between Google and publishers, which is exacerbated by generative AI. Google’s AI Overviews, which facilitate zero-click searches, retain traffic that would, pre-ChatGPT, land on publishers’ sites. During guidance sessions, publishers tell us that they’re losing tons of traffic to AI Overviews. Publishers missing traffic must now deal with uncertainty about the future of Google’s sell-side adtech.

Advertisers, however, are relatively unaffected by this decision. The DOJ failed to prove that Google has a monopoly on tech advertisers’ usage to buy display ads. In ruling for Google on the buy side, where Google fortifies tech acquired from DoubleClick and Admeld, Judge Brinkema found that advertisers choose among various ad platforms based on perceived return on ad spend. Advertisers continue to be dissatisfied by Google’s buy-side adtech’s lack of transparency and control, but Google doesn’t monopolize that market.

Forrester clients: Let’s chat more about this via a Forrester guidance session.