A PYMNTS Company

Federal Courts Align on Google Ad Tech Monopoly Rulings

By  |  October 28, 2025

A federal judge in New York has ruled in favor of online publishers and advertisers pursuing an antitrust case against Google, citing earlier findings that the tech giant engaged in monopolistic practices in its digital advertising business.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    According to Law 360, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs Gannett Co., the Daily Mail, and Inform Inc. The ruling prevents Google from attempting to relitigate conclusions reached in a separate Justice Department case tried earlier this year in the Eastern District of Virginia.

    Per Law 360, Judge Castel emphasized that the Virginia court had already established clear findings of anticompetitive behavior by Google, making further interpretation unnecessary. “The court in the [Eastern District of Virginia] action stated with clarity what it did and did not find as anticompetitive behavior,” Castel wrote in his decision.

    The Virginia case, overseen by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, concluded in April with a 115-page opinion holding that Google violated federal antitrust laws. Brinkema determined that Google’s control of critical advertising technology tools allowed it to dominate the online ad market unlawfully, particularly through the interconnection of its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX).

    According to Law 360, Judge Brinkema found that Google intentionally leveraged contractual policies and technological integration to stifle competition and maintain its monopoly. Her opinion concluded that this “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”

    Related: Court Says Yelp Can Pursue Claims That Google Rigged Local Search Market

    Although Brinkema dismissed some aspects of the government’s case, including claims related to advertiser ad network monopolization, her findings provided significant precedent for the plaintiffs in the New York action. Castel noted that both cases center on whether Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully maintaining monopoly power and whether it engaged in illegal tying of its ad server to its ad exchange.

    The Justice Department’s case, joined by eight states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia — seeks structural remedies, including the potential divestiture of Google’s ad exchange and ad server. Federal attorneys argue that separating those assets is essential to restoring competition, while Google contends that such a breakup would be “radical and reckless.”

    The Virginia bench trial concluded earlier this month, and Judge Brinkema has reportedly urged the company to consider a settlement with federal regulators. Final arguments in the case are scheduled for November 17.

    Source: Law 360