A U.S. District Court has delivered a verdict in a major antitrust case, finding Google liable for monopolizing key segments of the digital advertising technology market. The ruling, which followed a three-week bench trial, concluded that Google unlawfully acquired and maintained monopoly power in the markets for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges for open-web display advertising. Furthermore, the court found that Google illegally tied its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), with its ad exchange, AdX.
The ruling, which marks Google’s latest antitrust loss, states that the tech giant’s anti-competitive practices in two key markets “substantially harmed” publishers and users on the web. According to the U.S. government, Google collects monopoly profits at the expense of publishers and advertisers, who suffer from a degraded experience with limited alternatives.
Google’s dominance in search is no longer just about queries; it’s about controlling the full pipeline of information access and interpretation. With its search engine generating vast amounts of data and revenue, Google now has the resources to shape how knowledge is organized, ranked, and surfaced across the internet. This consolidation raises a critical question: When one company controls both the entry point to information and the systems that filter it, what space is left for competition, transparency, or alternative narratives?
In India, the ripple effects are no less real. Publishers, agencies, and independent media buyers have long flagged similar concerns about Google’s outsized influence on ad tech infrastructure and economics.
India’s Ad Market Fallout: Same Structure, Similar Struggles
Addressing the opaque revenue structures at Google and the ecosystem distortion, Shailendra Singh Mehta, Head – Paid Media, AdLift draws a direct parallel to the US case and says, “Indian publishers and agencies face challenges similar to those highlighted in the U.S. antitrust case against Google. They grapple with platform dependency, limited pricing transparency, and restricted access to real-time bidding. The Indian Newspaper Society has emphasized the opaque nature of Google’s advertising system, where publishers receive consolidated payments without clarity on their share of ad revenues. This lack of transparency and control hampers the ability of Indian ad tech to operate independently, as Google’s dominance in the ad stack limits competition and integration opportunities.”
The concerns aren’t limited to publishers alone. Independent agencies building full-funnel campaigns also find themselves constrained by the same bottlenecks.
“Absolutely it does, and it always has,” says Sindhu Biswal, CEO & Founder of Buzzlab, when asked if Google’s dual control impacts campaign performance.
Biswal explains that for full-funnel campaigns, especially in India where budgets are scrutinised down to the decimal, this control can skew performance planning. Optimisation becomes reactive, not strategic, because you’re operating with limited visibility into how demand is actually matched with supply. “You don’t know if you’re winning the auction because you had the best creative or because the system decided you should. That’s not healthy for advertisers, and it’s definitely not sustainable for publishers who are often forced into take-it-or-leave-it revenue terms.”
Biswal’s observations paint a picture for publishers and media partners facing revenue transparency issues and payout limitations due to Google’s end-to-end dominance.
He points out that most media partners don’t have a clear view of how much of the advertiser’s money actually reaches them, or what’s getting sliced off at each layer of the stack. “In India, we’ve seen publishers struggle with vague payout structures, unexplained deductions, and reporting delays, all because the same entity that’s running the auction is also taking the biggest cut. And since Google controls both the ad serving (DFP) and exchange (AdX), there’s no neutral ground or second opinion.”
Biswal adds that smaller publishers, especially regional or niche players, are the worst hit. They’re forced to accept lower yields simply because they have zero leverage and no visibility. The result? Fewer resources to invest in content, tech, or audience building, while the platform at the centre keeps scaling. Experts say Google’s end-to-end dominance creates a black box environment, and it’s one that directly impacts publisher earnings and long-term sustainability.
No Room to Negotiate
Further illustrating these structural challenges, Kritika Arora, Director- Performance and Acquisitions, Globale Media notes that integrating with Google’s ad tech ecosystem particularly AdX and DFP often presents limitations around transparency and control. The lack of real-time bidding clarity, especially in header bidding environments, can obscure how impressions are priced and allocated.
For instance, publishers frequently face difficulty accessing granular payout data, making revenue reconciliation challenging. Moreover, campaign control remains skewed in favor of Google’s tools, restricting how third-party demand is managed across formats. These challenges are magnified when managing hybrid web and mobile campaigns, where performance data silos hinder optimization. This often puts independent platforms at a disadvantage, especially when ensuring parity in campaign delivery.
Agencies are responding by seeking workarounds, but the underlying imbalance remains. Shlok Hari, Media Director, SW Network acknowledges the impact while outlining mitigation strategies. “We’re conscious that Google controls both the buy and sell side, which can sometimes skew access and preference towards its own exchange. This makes tracking the user journey beyond Google’s ecosystem more complicated, especially when running full-funnel campaigns.”
“Attribution mapping becomes a challenge. To navigate this, we actively diversify our media mix. We include other supply-side platforms and direct publisher partnerships to explore different inventories and audience segments. Some of the smaller players don’t have massive inventory but often deliver strong, high-impact placements. We also focus on building and monitoring our own first-party data, which helps track user journeys with better accuracy.”
It’s a mixed scenario. On one hand, there’s fairly good access to real-time bid auctions and granular data, which helps analyse and tweak campaigns. But on the other hand, there’s limited clarity on how the advertisers’ spend is distributed across the ad tech stack. The exact revenue share deductions at every layer aren’t always visible, which can make it harder for publishers and media partners to fully assess and deep dive.
Adding to this concern, Arora says, “Google’s vertical integration – owning both the ad server (DFP) and the exchange (AdX) – creates a conflict of interest that restricts open market competition. A 2020 UK study by the CMA revealed that Google’s ad tech stack takes up to 35% of advertiser spend. In India, publishers using DFP often find that AdX wins a disproportionate share of auctions, limiting access to more competitive bids from other exchanges. This lack of pricing transparency diminishes publishers’ ability to command fair value for their inventory and constrains monetization potential.”
Ambika Sharma, Founder and Chief Strategist, Pulp Strategy believes the opacity disproportionately affects mid-sized advertisers who lack negotiation power. “Agencies and brands often plan in the dark beyond basic metrics. This ruling may finally push for better visibility and accountability in India too – something long overdue.”
She hopes the U.S. ruling will be a catalyst for better visibility in India as well, especially in how auctions, bids, and revenue splits are managed.
While Sharma acknowledges the operational ease Google’s stack offers, she cautions that ease should not come at the cost of neutrality. “I’ve seen limitations in cross-channel attribution, bid strategy customization, and audience control – especially compared to open platforms.” More openness, she says, could truly empower performance advertisers and restore balance.
Highlighting the lock-in dynamics, Arora adds a cautionary note, “Yes, several publisher partners have flagged concerns about being nudged into Google’s tools to maintain access to premium inventory or demand. For example, access to formats like native or video demand via AdX often requires compliance with specific integrations or using Google’s mediation layers. This creates a lock-in effect, restricting publishers’ independence in choosing alternative monetization partners. It also complicates partnerships, as we must constantly adapt to work around these enforced barriers. It’s a growing concern – especially for mid-sized publishers – who want to diversify revenue streams without compromising on fill rate or quality demand.”
The Case for Rebalancing
The way forward, according to some, isn’t about dismantling dominance overnight but about rebalancing the ecosystem.
“The US ruling is less about penalizing dominance and more about rebalancing the ad tech value chain. For India, it puts a spotlight on long-standing questions around transparency, especially in how media value flows between advertisers, platforms, and publishers. It won’t change the landscape overnight, but it opens the door for more informed decision-making and innovation across the stack,” says Russhabh R Thakkar, Founder and CEO, Frodoh.
He elaborates, “We see growing interest in interoperable alternatives that allow for greater customization, clearer economics, and better alignment across the value chain. It’s a positive shift where publishers want more visibility, advertisers want more control, and tech partners like us are building toward that. The market is maturing, and that’s a good thing for everyone involved.”
Read More:Google ads costs soar: CPCs up 30%-100% across key industries, brands are fighting back