Google’s business practices, have been a matter of litigation for a few years, particularly concerning antitrust issues.
Leonie Brinkema, the US Federal judge presiding over the case in Virginia has now ruled that Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising. This is an antitrust judgement. It could result in it being forced to divest parts of its business.
The judgement- which will surely go into appeal – rules that Google wilfully monopolised the digital advertising market both in terms of the technology used by online publishers to sell ad space, as well as the exchange on which ads are bid for by businesses.
The US Department of Justice however failed to prove that Google unfairly dominated the advertiser ad networks.
This is a watershed judgement.
The argument is that Google’s dominance in the search engine market—holding over 90 percent market share—is maintained not solely through superior products but through strategic agreements that suppress competition. It is a matter of business practice that Google pays substantial sums to companies like Apple to ensure its search engine remains the default on their devices.
It is argued that such arrangements harm the competitive process, leading to reduced innovation and potentially compromising user privacy. The position on antitrust enforcement has not only been focused on consumer prices but also considered the broader implications of market dominance on democracy and economic equality.
To address these concerns, structural remedies such as breaking up parts of Google’s business, including separating its search engine from other services like Chrome and Android, have been demanded to restore competitive balance in the tech industry.
Google’s near monopoly in search is now extending into AI development. Since search engines generate massive datasets and revenue, Google uses this power to fund and train large-scale AI models, reinforcing its dominance. The argument is that if one company controls both the gateway to information and the AI tools that interpret it, it becomes a bottleneck for innovation, competition, and democratic access to knowledge.
Inherently, monopolies tend to suppress innovation because they don’t face pressure to improve. In AI, this could mean fewer alternative AI models, repression of interoperability and commercially motivated control over how information is filtered or personalized resulting in AI tools that reflect corporate biases, limit choice, and reduce transparency.
The proposed antitrust remedies, are many such as breaking up Google’s search, ad, and browser businesses, regulations on exclusive default deals and enforcing data-sharing standards to give startups a fair chance in AI.
AI built by monopolies could lead to a triple weight of data concentration, algorithmic curation and limited accountability.
However, to be fair, one has to see the change in context in a digital economy as compared to the earlier era in which anti-trust first emerged in the United States of America.
Today’s tech giants like Meta, Amazon, Google cannot be compared with early 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel when Louis Brandeis, a key figure in early antitrust thinking, warned that ‘big’ in itself was a danger. After all, in the digital domain, ‘scale’ is a natural quality , even a prerequisite.
The large body of work by the most storied Chicago School economists like Robert Bork, has argued that where monopolist excess is concerned, only consumer prices matter. The central principle is that antitrust laws should focus solely on consumer welfare, primarily measured by prices and output. If a company’s practices lead to lower prices or greater efficiency, even if they reduce competition, they are considered acceptable. Large firms often achieve their size through superior efficiency, not anticompetitive behavior.
It is also true that government regulation of market structure is often misguided, inefficient, and prone to populist abuse. Markets, tend to self-correct over time. Market dynamic humbles the mighty.
The digital world has seen the emergence of never before scale and wealth, but also disruption via innovation and new modalities. Because of the accelerated timelines, it is difficult to judge if this is monopolisation by intent.
Nevertheless, even in anticipation of outcomes, this case will change the world in many ways for marketers in digital advertising, search engine optimization (SEO), and data access.
In the new landscape, brands could get more visibility, better pricing, and fairer competition.
Google collects and uses vast amounts of user data across platforms – Chrome, Search, Android, Gmail, etc.
A ruling could limit Google’s ability to combine cross-platform data, especially without explicit user consent. Therefore, targeting might become less precise and a return to First-party data may get more important. Marketers need to shift focus to consent-based data strategies and contextual advertising.
Google decides which links appear in search results and often features its own services above competitors.
If regulators force Google to stop prioritizing its own products, organic search may become more competitive with greater ROI from SEO investment, not just ads.
The ask is to adapt strategies quickly, diversify ad spend, and become more creative with data, targeting, and content.
How? Google it.
Shubhranshu Singh, columnist and marketing top voice writes on brand building, technology and the consumer world