Google is illegally monopolizing online advertising tech, judge rules

How Google’s Ad-Tech Monopoly Worked (per thread)

• Several comments summarize the ruling as targeting two specific markets: publisher ad servers (e.g. DoubleClick for Publishers / Google Ad Manager) and ad exchanges (AdX).
• Google allegedly tied its ad server and exchange so publishers couldn’t use rivals on equal terms: non-Google exchanges got less info about impressions, Google bids could win even against higher third‑party bids, and publishers were barred from setting higher price floors for AdX than for others.
• When publishers adopted “header bidding” to route demand to multiple exchanges, Google’s buy-side tool (DV360) was modified to strategically underbid on third‑party exchanges, then outbid them on AdX with the advertiser’s full budget, effectively siphoning winning bids back to Google.
• Commenters stress that ad networks like AdSense were not the defined monopoly market; the focus is on the combined publisher‑ad‑server + exchange stack.

Is Google a Monopoly or Just Successful?

• One side argues Google faces ample competition (other ad networks, alternative mail/search/cloud providers) and offers easy exit, unlike Microsoft’s historic OS lock‑in. They see the ruling as word‑games around “monopoly” and possibly political.
• Others reply that three separate antitrust losses, under both parties and multiple judges, show a pattern of unlawful monopolization. They point out the legal concept is “monopoly power” in a defined market, not 100% share.
• There’s debate over the “consumer welfare” standard vs broader competition goals; some say focusing only on prices to end‑users misses harms to publishers and advertisers.

Experiences of Dependence and Power Imbalance

• Multiple publishers and app developers describe account bans, sudden revenue collapses, and opaque policy enforcement with essentially no human support.
• Critics say this shows how a dominant platform can “ruin your business” without recourse; defenders counter that relying on a single free vendor is a business risk, not a rights violation, and that many alternative ad channels exist (social, TV, print, other networks).
• Others respond that in practice there is no true “drop‑in” Adsense/AdMob replacement for small and medium online properties, especially on short notice.

Ad-Tech Industry Critique Beyond Google

• Many comments portray programmatic advertising as systematically extractive: a large share of every ad dollar goes to intermediaries, with extensive fraud, opaque auctions, and questionable targeting value.
• Some ad-tech insiders argue the middle layers add real efficiency (better matching, higher conversion), while critics cite studies claiming behavioral targeting often underperforms simple untargeted or contextual ads once costs are included.
• Privacy and tracking are major flashpoints: one camp sees granular targeting as necessary for viable ad-funded media; the other sees it as inherently abusive and calls for bans or strict limits, even if that shrinks ad-supported content.

Breakup, Remedies, and Comparisons

• There’s disagreement on whether Google should be structurally split (separating ads from products like search, Chrome, Android, YouTube) or merely constrained (e.g., audited exchanges, behavioral remedies).
• Some argue vertical integration lets Google dump subsidized products and distort adjacent markets; others note many of those “subsidized” products counter other monopolies (e.g., Android vs iOS, Chrome vs legacy IE) and fear breakups could strengthen different giants.
• Historical analogies to AT&T and Microsoft split opinions: some credit those cases with enabling the modern internet and startup ecosystem; others say reconsolidation and research cutbacks show the limits or costs of breakup.

Broader Antitrust and Political Context

• Several comments highlight that major Google antitrust actions were filed under both Trump and Biden, and that Big Tech enforcement is now bipartisan, though motives differ.
• Skeptics doubt meaningful consequences will follow or worry future administrations could weaken remedies or be “bought off.”
• Others see the ruling as a long-overdue signal that digital platforms cannot act as exclusive, self-dealing market makers on both sides of critical online infrastructure.