Global tech behemoth, Google, is once again in the crosshairs of U.S. antitrust regulators as the Justice Department moves to dismantle its grip on the digital advertising industry.
The Justice Department accuses the Silicon Valley giant of operating an illegal monopoly that has suffocated competition and extracted billions from advertisers and publishers.
Arguments began on Monday before Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Federal prosecutors insist that Google has built and maintained a stranglehold over the tools that place ads across websites, effectively controlling the internet’s most powerful money machine.
The government’s proposed solution is drastic but clear: force Google to sell off its advertising technology unit, according to the New York Times.
Read also:
- OpenAI expands Cloud Power with Google partnership for ChatGPT
- Google’s Pixel 10 Pro Fold 1st dust-proof foldable phone
- Google faces court scrutiny as AI threatens search monopoly
The new case comes just weeks after Google narrowly avoided a corporate breakup in a separate monopoly battle over its search engine business.
In that case, Judge Amit Mehta of the D.C. District Court ruled that Google had indeed abused its dominance in search but stopped short of ordering the company to shed key assets like its Chrome browser.
That outcome was seen as a major setback for antitrust enforcement and a win for Google’s vast legal and lobbying machine.
But the Justice Department believes the latest trial may yield a different outcome.
Unlike in the search case, the very product the government wants dismantled, Google’s ad exchange business, sits at the heart of the allegations.
Prosecutors argue that Google positioned itself as the broker, seller, and buyer in the digital ads market, effectively rigging the system in its own favor.
By owning the marketplace and competing within it, the government says, Google has locked out rivals, manipulated auction prices, and pocketed enormous profits while publishers and advertisers suffered.
The stakes are enormous. Digital advertising is the backbone of Google’s empire, generating the bulk of the company’s multibillion-dollar annual revenues.
A forced breakup would mark the most significant government intervention in a U.S. tech company since the dismantling of AT&T in the 1980s, and could set the stage for broader crackdowns on big tech monopolies.
Google, unsurprisingly, is fighting back. Company lawyers argue that the government’s demands are extreme, unnecessary, and potentially damaging to the broader internet economy.
Instead of divestiture, Google has floated alternative remedies, including a revamp of its ad auction system, which executives claim will give more favorable terms to publishers.
“We believe there are less destructive ways to address competition concerns,” the company insists.
Critics, however, see this as another stalling tactic. For years, Google has fended off regulators with half-measures and promises of reform while tightening its grip on online markets.
Public interest advocates argue that only a structural breakup can end what they describe as “a chokehold on the digital economy.”
The trial, expected to run for two to three weeks, is shaping up to be a landmark moment.
Judge Brinkema has already ruled in a preliminary decision that Google holds monopoly power in at least two advertising markets, giving the government a stronger foundation to push for radical remedies.
