Landmark Federal Decisions Finding Google Violated Antitrust Law

Two independent federal proceedings determined that Google unlawfully controlled the digital ad ecosystem, creating the legal groundwork for businesses to seek restitution.

United States v. Google LLC: Search Advertising Monopoly

August 2024 U.S. District Court, District of Columbia

Judge Amit Mehta delivered a landmark decision in the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Google. The court concluded that Google had deliberately maintained monopoly power in search and search advertising through unlawful conduct.

Key Findings

Exclusive Deals

Billions spent on contracts with device makers to guarantee Google as the default search engine everywhere.

Blocked Competition

Rival search engines were effectively shut out, preventing meaningful competition from emerging.

Inflated Ad Prices

Monopoly power directly inflated advertising prices for businesses purchasing Google Search Ads.

Market Dominance

Google sustained dominance through practices antitrust law is specifically designed to prevent.

“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.”

Judge Amit Mehta, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Verdict

Businesses that purchased Google Search Ads paid more than they would have in a competitive marketplace. This is the core harm that antitrust law is designed to prevent.

United States v. Google LLC: Ad Technology Monopoly

April 2025 U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia

Judge Leonie Brinkema decided the DOJ's second major antitrust case against Google, focused on the digital advertising technology infrastructure. The court found that Google illegally monopolized the publisher ad server market and the ad exchange market.

Key Findings

Forced Bundling

Publishers using Google's ad server were forced to adopt its exchange, eliminating their ability to choose competitors.

Rigged Bidding

Google manipulated auction processes to advantage its own tools over outside competitors.

Market Exclusion

Exclusionary practices blocked rival ad tech companies from gaining meaningful market share.

Inflated Costs

Lower publisher earnings and inflated costs for advertisers purchasing the same ad inventory.

“This exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”

Judge Leonie Brinkema, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Verdict

Google's monopolistic grip over the entire digital advertising supply chain was confirmed, further solidifying the legal basis for advertiser recovery claims.

How This Affects Your Business

Together, these two rulings reveal a comprehensive picture of Google's illegal control over digital advertising. For businesses that purchased Google Ads, the consequences are significant:

~10%

Estimated Overcharge

Estimated 5 to 10% markup on ad costs due to suppressed competition.

Treble Damages*

Up to three times actual damages under the Clayton Act.

2

Federal Cases

Two courts found Google guilty of antitrust violations.

*Treble damages are provided for under federal antitrust law but are not automatic. Each claim is resolved through individual arbitration, and any award is at the discretion of the arbitrator.

Understanding Treble Damages Under Federal Law

Federal antitrust law provides powerful remedies for businesses harmed by monopolistic conduct. Under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15), any business injured by an antitrust violation may recover three times their actual damages.

This provision fully compensates victims for the true extent of their losses, and it deters future anticompetitive behavior by making violations extremely costly for monopolists.

Example Recovery
Ad spend overcharge $10,000
Treble multiplier × 3
Potential recovery $30,000

Plus attorneys' fees and costs. Applies to the entire overcharge period from August 2016 through the present.

Treble damages are provided for under federal antitrust law but are not guaranteed. Each claim is resolved through individual arbitration, and any award, including the treble multiplier, is at the discretion of the arbitrator based on the facts of the case.

Ready to Get Started?

Two federal courts have confirmed that Google violated the law. If your business advertised on Google, you may be entitled to significant compensation.

See What You May Be Owed

Coverage period: August 2016 to present. Claims are currently being evaluated.