A US federal judge declared Google's ad-tech empire an illegal monopoly last year and has now issued behavioral remedies meant to rein in the company's anti-competitive practices. However, experts and industry insiders argue these measures fall short of curbing future abuses, spotlighting a broader call for legislative solutions.
- Court orders behavioral remedies to address Google's ad tech monopoly
- Remedies do not dismantle Google's dual control of key ad tech layers
- Experts warn legislative action is needed for meaningful competition
What happened
In April 2025, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google’s digital advertising technology empire constituted an illegal monopoly due to its consolidation of multiple ad-tech components, including its Ad Exchange and DoubleClick for Publishers ad server. The court recently made public a set of behavioral remedies aimed at reducing Google's monopolistic advantage by imposing requirements such as prohibiting mandatory bundling of its ad server with its ad exchange and mandating interoperability with third-party bidding software like Prebid.
These remedies also aim to provide publishers with more control over their data and prevent discrimination in favor of Google's own products. A court-appointed monitor has been tasked with overseeing Google's compliance. Yet, the remedies explicitly avoid breaking up Google’s ad-tech stack or forcing structural separation, focusing solely on modifying Google’s behavior moving forward.
Why it matters
Despite the remedies sounding promising on paper, Google’s ownership of both the ad server and exchange creates persistent conflicts of interest and incentives to favor its own services. Historical patterns underscore this risk as Google previously broke commitments related to data usage and competition in ad tech, including a notable breach of a 2007 promise and French regulatory sanctions for failing to uphold commitments to news publishers.
Additionally, the enforcement framework presents significant challenges. The monitor must notify Google immediately of any violation, yet Google can respond over a minimum 30-day period, potentially delaying corrective action. Industry observers fear that even minor attempts to circumvent the remedies could lead to protracted legal battles, undermining the effectiveness of this enforcement approach.
What to watch next
This case underscores the limitations of behavioral remedies when applied to dominant digital platforms controlling multiple interconnected services in their ecosystems. Parallel enforcement actions, such as the recent Federal Trade Commission complaint against Amazon for hidden advertising surcharges, show that structural issues persist despite ongoing legal scrutiny.
There is active bipartisan momentum toward enacting legislation designed to address these fundamental challenges by targeting monopoly power in digital ad tech more decisively. The industry and policymakers will be closely watching whether new laws can offer a more robust solution to foster competition and fairness in digital advertising markets beyond incremental judicial remedies.