U.S. Scores New Legal Antitrust Victory Over Google

The US government, led by President Trump, has recorded another big win in the battle that US law enforcement agencies have been waging for years against Google.

This time, a federal court issued a landmark ruling stating that Google acquired abusive monopolistic power in online ad tech markets and that it has been deliberately leveraging its dominance to stifle competition. This April 2025 ruling comes in the wake of another landmark ruling handed down in August 2024, which found that Google also acquired a monopoly in the search engine market, which is tangential to the online advertising market. This pair of rulings may pave the way for US antitrust prosecutors to compel Google to sell some of the platforms that it operates, which could have a profound impact on the online search and advertising markets.

Background: DOJ Alleges Google Abused Ad Tech Monopoly

The US Department of Justice’s allegations against Google – in the current proceeding, which has already been dragging on for years, the DOJ alleged that Google had taken action to unlawfully acquire monopolies in three separate submarkets of the online advertising sector: (1) ad servers – centralized ad inventory management platforms used by SSPs (supply-side parties – websites’ selling ad space) to decide on the which are the most compatible ads to display; (2) ad networks – intermediaries between SSPs and DSPs (demand-side parties – advertisers) that buy ad inventory from SSPs and sell it to DSPs; and (3) ad exchanges – digital marketplaces where SSPs and DSPs directly sell and buy ad inventory through real-time bidding.

The ruling: Google stifled competition in the online advertising market – a federal court in Virginia partially allowed the prosecution’s position and ruled that Google had indeed willfully and unlawfully acquired and entrenched its monopolistic power in two of these three sub-markets: in ad servers and in ad exchanges. The ruling further stated that Google’s exclusionary conduct harmed the competitive process by eliminating competitors or depriving them of the ability to compete. The federal court judge further stated that, for over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled Google to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets.

The court ruled that these unlawful practices significantly harmed competition in the two submarkets by depriving advertisers of the ability to choose, and ultimately, also indirectly harmed end-customers who consume the online advertising content. The court further ruled that Google committed spoliation (destroying or otherwise suppressing evidence or failing to take reasonable steps to preserve it) by operating an internal messaging application that deleted records of chats between employees – thereby attesting to an attempt by Google to conceal evidence and testimonies relevant to the case at bar.

In response to the court ruling, Google stated that it operates in a competitive market in which advertisers have other alternatives, and that their decision to choose Google derives from the effectiveness of the tools that it offers. Google announced that it intends to appeal the ruling.

Google also harmed competition in the search engine market – the April 2025 ruling scores another victory for the DOJ, and is a huge milestone in the battle declared by the federal government against Google. In August 2024, a federal court in Washington, D.C. ruled that Google violated antitrust law by acquiring an illegal monopoly in the online search engine market, and that it abused its power to strengthen its control over the market and harm competition. This lawsuit was also filed by the U.S. DOJ and by several countries.

The court ruled that Google had taken a series of anti-competitive measures to ensure its exclusivity at key search access points – primarily through agreements with device and browser manufacturers.

The court noted that Google paid billions of dollars to companies, such as Apple and Mozilla, to ensure that Google’s search engine (Chrome) is the preloaded default in their smartphones and web browsers. By doing so, Google quashed its competitors’ ability to expand and effectively compete against it.

Potential implications: structural measures are on the agenda

These two court rulings may have far-reaching regulatory, statutory and commercial implications.

After both courts ruled on Google’s legal liability, rulings can be expected to be issued during the next stage deciding on what Google must do to restore competition in these markets – either a structural solution, by ordering Google to sell particular divisions to third parties in order to restore competition in these markets – or by ordering Google to substantially change its business practices that quashed competition.

The US government is ramping up antitrust measures against tech giants

This trend can already be seen in the Google search engine case: the Trump administration announced its intention to continue the previous administration’s aggressive antitrust measures against Google and, a few weeks ago, the DOJ petitioned the court to compel Google to sell its Chrome browser.

The DOJ is claiming that Chrome is a key search access point, and forcing Google to sell it,  will enable new players to enter the market and create additional internet search gateways that are not dependent on Google. Structural solutions – such as corporate break-ups – are considered relatively extreme antitrust enforcement measures in the US, which usually focus on solutions involving changes in anti-competitive business practices. Therefore, the mere demand for a corporate break-up signifies a shift in US enforcement policy toward tech giants.

The proceedings against Google are still underway and additional rulings are expected down the road. However, it is already clear that the Trump administration is continuing to implement an aggressive and focused policy towards overly dominant technology platforms, and that it is willing to use extreme enforcement measures, including corporate break-ups, to ensure effective competition in centralized digital markets. These developments are also expected to affect law enforcement agencies and corporations worldwide.

***

Adv. Irit Brodsky is a partner in the firm’s antitrust and competition department.

Adv. Ran Karmi is an associate in the firm’s antitrust and competition department.

The firm’s Competition and Antitrust Department provides comprehensive legal services in all aspects of competition and antitrust law, including representing our clients in criminal and civil courts, and in the competition tribunal, before the competition commissioner and legislative and regulatory authorities, and providing ongoing advice and assistance in business processes.