In April 2025, a U.S. federal court issued a landmark ruling: Google was found guilty of illegally monopolising two key digital advertising technology markets — the publisher ad server product, Google Ad Manager (previously DoubleClick for Publishers), and its supply-side platform, Google Ad Exchange.
The ruling concluded a years-long legal process that examined how Google integrated its services in ways that blocked competitors’ access to the market and limited choice. This is not just a legal precedent; it’s a landmark moment for the entire digital advertising ecosystem. It validates what many publishers have long experienced: a lack of alternatives and a heavy dependence on Google’s technology. Now, attention turns to the actions that may follow the ruling, such as a potential breakup of platforms or the creation of new regulatory frameworks. For publishers, this could mean new opportunities, but also uncertainty and transitional challenges.
In this blog, we examine what the ruling could mean in practice and how it might impact the role of publishers in digital advertising in the years to come.
Google abused its power in ad tech – here’s how it happened
Google’s dominance in advertising technology wasn’t the result of innovation alone, but of structural abuse of power. The U.S. federal court found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits the acquisition and maintenance of monopoly power through anticompetitive means.
The ruling demonstrates how the company utilised its core tools – Google Ad Manager and Google Ad Exchange – as a bundled package, steering publishers toward choosing Google’s ecosystem over alternatives. This kind of tying arrangement reduced market transparency and competitiveness while ensuring that demand continued to flow through Google’s channels.
The court also found that Google maintained its take rates significantly higher than those of its competitors for years, indicating that market forces were no longer functioning correctly. The company held a share of as much as 91% of publisher ad servers, and Google Ad Exchange accounted for roughly 60% of open exchange traffic. This wasn’t just market leadership – it was a structure that undermined competition, limited choice, and distorted the distribution of ad revenue across the entire web.
Publishers cautious despite ruling – real change may take time
While the court’s decision is historic and validates what many publishers have long experienced, reactions have remained measured. It’s not about indifference – it’s about uncertainty.
The ruling highlights publishers’ dependence on a single provider, the scarcity of alternatives, and the challenges of negotiating fair terms. These challenges are now acknowledged, but solutions are not yet in sight. The verdict alone won’t change the market overnight – it merely sets a potential change in motion. Any practical remedies, such as breaking up platforms or introducing new regulations, could take years to materialise. Most publishers also can’t make sudden infrastructure changes without viable and secure alternatives.
This is especially true for small and mid-sized players, who rely heavily on the stability and reliability of Google’s infrastructure. If Google is forced to retreat or restructure, functional replacements may not appear immediately. One publisher put it aptly: if Google were Rome, its collapse wouldn’t happen without chaos. At this stage, many are watching developments closely but holding off on major decisions until the direction becomes clearer.
What happens next? Options and implications for the ad market
The court ruling could have far-reaching consequences for Google’s business operations. One potential remedy is the forced divestiture of parts of its ad tech business, particularly its publisher-facing technologies, such as Google Ad Manager and Google Ad Exchange. These tools are considered crucial to Google’s market dominance. If they are separated from the parent company, it could open the door for new players and enable more genuine competition.
Another option is regulatory intervention without divestiture. Google could be required to increase transparency around how its technologies operate, stop favouring its services, and ensure fair access to demand for competing platforms. While these actions may not reshape the market as dramatically as a breakup would, they could still significantly enhance publishers’ negotiating power in areas such as technology choice and pricing.
At the same time, it’s essential to consider that Google may shift its strategy. Rather than trying to maintain its position on the open web, the company could double down on its closed ecosystems, such as YouTube, Discover, or AI-driven services. This could leave the open web increasingly in the hands of publishers and independent ad tech providers, while Google strengthens its control within its walled gardens.
Why this ruling could reshape the future of digital advertising
Google has now been officially found guilty of abusing its dominant position at the core of digital ad technology. While the decision is historically significant, its impact won’t be felt overnight. The road ahead is long, with numerous possible scenarios—from legal appeals to strategic shifts and market structural changes.
For publishers, this is a moment of both hope and uncertainty. The ruling could pave the way for fairer competition, better contract terms, and a more open ad tech ecosystem. However, before that vision becomes a reality, turbulence, confusion, additional costs, and friction may arise during a transitional period. That’s why everyone involved in digital advertising, especially publishers, should closely monitor developments.
Now is the right time to reassess your tech stack, negotiation leverage, and dependencies. Change may bring challenges, but it can also create new opportunities for those ready to act.