'Google's Illegal Monopoly and How US Court Decision Comes at a Critical Time for UK and EU Policymakers'
Byline Times is an independent, reader-funded investigative newspaper, outside of the system of the established press, reporting on 'what the papers don't say' - without fear or favour.
Our monthly print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, features and columns ONLINE NOW
A US federal court ruling that Google illegally monopolised the market for open-web digital advertising will have profound implications for markets, regulators, and the future of the open internet and has been lauded as a "decisive step to restore fairness in digital markets".
The 17 April decision, followed a 15-day trial in which the US Department of Justice (DOJ) proved Google's dominance of advertising technology harmed competition, distorted pricing, and undermined the viability of independent online publishing.
The ruling represents the most significant antitrust decision against a technology company since the Microsoft case over two decades ago.
Musk's DOGE Is Inspired by Pro-Kremlin Monarchists and 1930s Technofascism
Musk's top DOGE operative is linked to a Russian American network of anti-West pro-Kremlin monarchists inspired by the 1930s counter-democracy "Technocracy" movement, of which Musk's grandfather was a member
Nafeez Ahmed
The central issue in the DOJ's case was Google's end-to-end control of the ad tech "stack" - the suite of technologies that facilitate the buying, selling, and placement of digital adverts. Google simultaneously operates the leading ad exchange (AdX), publisher ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP), and advertiser buying tools (such as DV360).
This vertical integration enables Google to act as both referee and player in every advertising transaction, presenting an unavoidable conflict of interest. The court found that Google exploited this position to manipulate auctions, disadvantage rivals, and consolidate its control over digital advertising revenues.
Judge Leonie Brinkema noted that Google had consistently deployed exclusionary tactics, including shutting off interoperability with rival services, conditioning access to its products on exclusivity, and leveraging user data across services to entrench its market position. These practices, the court found, were not the result of superior efficiency or innovation, but deliberate strategies to eliminate competition.
The ramifications of this decision extend far beyond US borders. In Europe, regulators have been investigating similar concerns about Google's ad tech practices for several years and the ruling validates claims made by civil society groups, publishers, and advertisers that Google's conduct is not only anti-competitive but structurally harmful to the internet ecosystem.
From Murdoch to Musk: Hacking the State
While the media mogul spent more than half a century building up back-door political influence, the social media broligarch stormed into the US Government in just two years. Peter Jukes explores how the use of power through media has evolved
Peter Jukes
UK-based non-profit Movement for an Open Web (MOW) has long campaigned against Google's dominance in ad tech, and in 2020, it complained to the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), highlighting the risks posed by Google's proposed Privacy Sandbox initiative.
Ostensibly presented as a privacy-enhancing reform, the Sandbox would in practice have removed the ability of third parties to access user-level data for ad targeting, thereby locking them out of key advertising functions while preserving Google's access through its browser and search monopoly. The CMA launched an investigation, and in 2022 secured legally binding commitments from Google, based in part on MOW's submissions.
The DOJ's successful prosecution reinforces the strategic value of early regulatory intervention. The US government is now seeking structural remedies, including the divestment of technological tools that make up AdX and DFP - the core infrastructure of Google's ad empire.
These remedies echo proposals ma...
Our monthly print edition, packed with exclusive investigations, features and columns ONLINE NOW
A US federal court ruling that Google illegally monopolised the market for open-web digital advertising will have profound implications for markets, regulators, and the future of the open internet and has been lauded as a "decisive step to restore fairness in digital markets".
The 17 April decision, followed a 15-day trial in which the US Department of Justice (DOJ) proved Google's dominance of advertising technology harmed competition, distorted pricing, and undermined the viability of independent online publishing.
The ruling represents the most significant antitrust decision against a technology company since the Microsoft case over two decades ago.
Musk's DOGE Is Inspired by Pro-Kremlin Monarchists and 1930s Technofascism
Musk's top DOGE operative is linked to a Russian American network of anti-West pro-Kremlin monarchists inspired by the 1930s counter-democracy "Technocracy" movement, of which Musk's grandfather was a member
Nafeez Ahmed
The central issue in the DOJ's case was Google's end-to-end control of the ad tech "stack" - the suite of technologies that facilitate the buying, selling, and placement of digital adverts. Google simultaneously operates the leading ad exchange (AdX), publisher ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP), and advertiser buying tools (such as DV360).
This vertical integration enables Google to act as both referee and player in every advertising transaction, presenting an unavoidable conflict of interest. The court found that Google exploited this position to manipulate auctions, disadvantage rivals, and consolidate its control over digital advertising revenues.
Judge Leonie Brinkema noted that Google had consistently deployed exclusionary tactics, including shutting off interoperability with rival services, conditioning access to its products on exclusivity, and leveraging user data across services to entrench its market position. These practices, the court found, were not the result of superior efficiency or innovation, but deliberate strategies to eliminate competition.
The ramifications of this decision extend far beyond US borders. In Europe, regulators have been investigating similar concerns about Google's ad tech practices for several years and the ruling validates claims made by civil society groups, publishers, and advertisers that Google's conduct is not only anti-competitive but structurally harmful to the internet ecosystem.
From Murdoch to Musk: Hacking the State
While the media mogul spent more than half a century building up back-door political influence, the social media broligarch stormed into the US Government in just two years. Peter Jukes explores how the use of power through media has evolved
Peter Jukes
UK-based non-profit Movement for an Open Web (MOW) has long campaigned against Google's dominance in ad tech, and in 2020, it complained to the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), highlighting the risks posed by Google's proposed Privacy Sandbox initiative.
Ostensibly presented as a privacy-enhancing reform, the Sandbox would in practice have removed the ability of third parties to access user-level data for ad targeting, thereby locking them out of key advertising functions while preserving Google's access through its browser and search monopoly. The CMA launched an investigation, and in 2022 secured legally binding commitments from Google, based in part on MOW's submissions.
The DOJ's successful prosecution reinforces the strategic value of early regulatory intervention. The US government is now seeking structural remedies, including the divestment of technological tools that make up AdX and DFP - the core infrastructure of Google's ad empire.
These remedies echo proposals ma...
Activity