Federal court rules Google’s ad network illegal monopoly
Jason Boleman//April 24, 2025//
SUMMARY:
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Google violated the Sherman Act
- Google tied ad products to create digital ad tech monopoly
- The Department of Justice and 17 states, including Virginia, filed suit in 2023
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google acquired monopoly power in digital advertising markets in violation of the Sherman Act.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema authored the 115-page ruling in United States of America v. Google. The court’s decision stemmed from a 2023 lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice and 17 state attorneys general, including Virginia.
“Google’s conduct undermined competition and innovation in ad tech, which is fundamental to the vibrant internet we rely on in a free and open society,” Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares said in an April 17 press release. “[The] ruling is a resounding victory for free markets, free competition, and the rule of law. No company — no matter how big or powerful — is above the law.”
Brinkema wrote that Google tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies for more than a decade. That strategy enabled the company to create and protect a monopoly in those markets. Google imposed anticompetitive policies on its customers, such as eliminating desirable product features, Brinkema said.
The suit also alleged Google monopolized three digital advertising technology markets and tied its products in those markets together in violation of the Sherman Act.
The decision comes eight months after a federal court held in a separate case that Google’s search engine held a monopoly in the internet search area.
The district court will schedule further hearings on potential remedies in the coming months, Miyares’ office said.
Related Articles
Legal Tech
- A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR : New dedicated coverage of tech challenges facing law firms and legal departments
- Gemini Legal launches DraftEngine for civil litigation forms
- Lawyers continue to grapple with AI ethical issues
Verdicts & Settlements
- Medical Malpractice – Death from cancer followed stomach pain misdiagnosis
- Workers’ Compensation – Seasonal worker paralyzed in tobacco baler accident
- Medical Malpractice – Jurors side with doctor in suit over rescue surgery
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – Unicycle rider dies after being hit by car
- Premises Liability – Delivery driver injured by porch decking collapse
Opinion Digests
- Criminal – Allen charge wasn’t abuse of discretion
- Evidence – Expert’s exclusion from trial deemed harmless
- Parent and child – Mother held in contempt for violating visitation order
- Criminal – Court refuses to continue trial despite missing witness
- Criminal – Meth defendant wasn’t entitled to sentencing safety valve
- Tort – Comments about plaintiff were protected opinions
- Real Property – Condo unit owner challenges expansion plans







