Google’s Adtech Monopoly Ruling: What It Means for the Industry (and What Comes Next)
On April 17, 2025, a federal judge ruled that Google illegally monopolized two major parts of the digital advertising world: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges. The decision comes from a Department of Justice lawsuit originally filed in 2023, and it found that Google broke antitrust laws by tying its ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP) with its ad exchange (AdX). The goal? To keep competitors out and maintain dominance.
This ruling has major implications across adtech. Some see it as a step toward more competition. Others worry it could do more harm than good. Here’s a breakdown of what happened and how the industry, including leadership at Inuvo, is thinking about it.
What Did Google Actually Do?
The DOJ’s case focused on how Google controls a huge share of the adtech stack; about 90% of publisher ad servers and 50% of ad exchanges. The court said that Google made it nearly impossible for publishers to succeed unless they used both DFP and AdX. Practices like Unified Pricing Rules were also flagged as anti-competitive because they limited publishers’ ability to control their pricing.
While the judge sided with the DOJ on this front, the court didn’t agree that Google monopolized the advertiser ad network market. Now, the focus shifts to what happens next. Remedies could include forcing Google to sell off parts of its ad business or mandating changes in how its tools work together. Google is expected to appeal, saying its tools are popular because they’re efficient, not because of any foul play. They also argue that the DOJ is zooming in on just one part of a much larger market—where Google holds 29% of total digital ad spend (eMarketer, 2025).
Industry Reactions: A Mixed Bag
Some see this as a win for the open web. Groups like the Tech Oversight Project called the ruling “a win for the American people,” and industry voices like AdExchanger said it could open the door for competitors like The Trade Desk or Magnite. Publishers, in particular, hope this leads to more revenue and better options outside the Google ecosystem.
Amir Bakhshaie, SVP of IntentKey at Inuvo, offered his take:
“The spirit of the verdict, while aiming to create a more open and diversified adtech space is commendable. However, it’s too early to determine if this will truly level the playing field or inadvertently harm smaller publishers, potentially shrinking the open web and strengthening Google’s hand elsewhere.”
In other words, good intentions, but the outcome is still uncertain, especially for smaller players.
Others are nervous about the ripple effects. Not everyone is celebrating. Some worry that breaking up Google’s adtech stack could cause more disruption than progress. One user on X (@adamkovac) pointed out that it might lead to “worse ad targeting and lower revenue” for publishers and advertisers who rely on Google’s tools.
Inuvo’s CEO, Richard K. Howe, echoed that concern:
“The judge’s guilty verdict is significant, but the real impact hinges on remedies. Divestitures of DFP and AdX seem likely, as they’re at the heart of Google’s monopoly. However, without clarity on how these changes will be implemented, the industry faces a period of uncertainty that could reshape programmatic advertising.”
What About Google’s Side?
There are still many in the industry who defend Google. Their argument is simple: the tools work, and they work well.
Some say Google’s ad stack (DFP + AdX) is efficient, affordable, and helps publishers streamline operations. That’s why they use it, not because they’re forced to. Even if DFP and AdX were split off, Google still owns the lion’s share of advertiser demand through Search and YouTube, making it hard for publishers to walk away.
As Amir Bakhshaie put it:
“The judge missed the mark. DFP and AdX dominate not because of some unique tactic but because most advertisers use Google, giving it the best bids… Even if DFP and AdX are sold off, Google’s control over advertiser budgets, through exclusive access to Search and YouTube inventory, means publishers will still need to tap into its demand, directly or indirectly, potentially at a higher cost.”
Supporters also argue the DOJ is looking at too narrow a slice of the market. Between Meta, Amazon, TikTok, and CTV platforms, they say Google has plenty of competition—and its shrinking share of digital ad spend proves it (TechCrunch, 2025).
There’s also concern that breaking up Google could slow innovation. Google has led the way on bidding tech and privacy tools like Privacy Sandbox. Some worry smaller vendors won’t be able to keep up.
What Now?
Even as Google prepares to appeal, the industry is already adjusting. Competitors are lining up to grab market share, and publishers are exploring new ad server options. But uncertainty remains.
As Amir Bakhshaie noted:
“It’s unclear if this verdict will ultimately help or further hurt publishers. A smaller open web could emerge, forcing publishers to pay more to access Google’s demand, which would undermine the goal of a diversified adtech space.”
And Richard K. Howe sums up what’s on everyone’s mind:
“Divestitures of DFP and AdX could reshape the market, but the industry needs clarity on how these changes will unfold to avoid disruption.”
Final Thoughts
This ruling could be a turning point or it could just shift the power dynamics around. The industry wants more competition and fairness, but how we get there and whether smaller publishers truly benefit, depends on how the next phase plays out.
As the case heads into remedies, we’ll keep watching and weighing in. If the goal is a healthier, more open ecosystem, execution is everything.
Facts and figures referenced in this article are based on reporting from Reuters, TechCrunch, AdExchanger, and the DOJ’s public filings as of April 2025
