Skip to content
The Micro Agency

Research, antitrust and diversification

A court called it a monopoly. Your media plan should call it a risk.

Two US federal courts have found Google to be an unlawful monopolist, in search and in ad tech. Trial evidence showed advertisers paid more because no rival kept it honest. Google is where you spend. Microsoft is where you grow.

Book an audit What the courts found ↓

Last reviewed: 30 June 2026.

What the courts actually found

Two separate cases, two separate courts, two findings of unlawful monopoly. Both are civil matters and both are being appealed.

Card 1 · Search

US v. Google (DDC, Judge Mehta)

On 5 August 2024 the court found Google held unlawful monopolies in general search and in search text advertising (CRS). The 2 September 2025 remedies decision and 5 December 2025 final judgment ordered behavioural remedies: no Chrome divestiture, a one-year cap on default deals, data sharing with approved "Qualified Competitors", and a five-year syndication pathway for Google's search results and text-ads feed (CNBC). Google filed its appeal in 16 January 2026; a motion to stay the data-sharing mandate was denied on 8 May 2026, so those remedies remain in force during the appeal (MediaPost).

Card 2 · Ad tech

US v. Google (EDVA, Judge Brinkema)

On 17 April 2025 the court found Google unlawfully monopolised the open-web publisher ad server and ad exchange markets and illegally tied DFP to AdX (Simpson Thacher). The remedies trial ran from September to November 2025, with the DOJ seeking divestiture of AdX and open-sourcing of the auction logic (AdExchanger). As of this review the remedies ruling is still pending (Digiday).

Why this matters to advertisers

In a competitive market, a supplier that raises prices loses customers. Google's search-ads monopoly removed that check, and trial evidence showed it used the freedom. The mechanics were named in the court record.

"Intentional pricing"

Google's own internal term for the levers that adjust what advertisers pay (Findings of Fact).

Squashing ("Butternut Squash")

Inflates the runner-up's predicted score so the auction winner has to pay more (Findings of Fact).

Format pricing

Charging more for ads that carry extra text and links (MarTech).

RGSP

A randomised generalised second-price step, introduced in 2019, that occasionally swaps the top two bidders and pushes final prices up (Findings of Fact).

The scale was set out at trial. Google's then head of Ads testified that Google frequently changed its ad auctions without telling advertisers, raising costs by around 5% on average and up to 10% on some queries (Bloomberg via Yahoo). Internal estimates put the combined revenue lift from some changes at around 15% (MarTech). Trial exhibits described tuning the auction to hit revenue targets, internally "shaking the cushions" (PPC Hero). Google search ad CPCs more than doubled between 2013 and 2020 (Search Engine Land), and the DOJ characterised the auction as a "black box" to advertisers (PPC Hero).

You were not imagining the rising CPCs, and you had no second venue with enough scale to walk to. That is the definition of concentration risk.

Timeline

The case history, from the 2020 filing to the pending ad tech remedies. Pending items are marked and are not final.

  1. DOJ sues Google over search

    The Department of Justice and a group of states file the search monopolisation case in the District of Columbia.

    DDC (Mehta)

  2. Search liability ruling

    A federal court finds Google an unlawful monopolist in general search services and search text advertising.

    DDC (Mehta)

    Source

  3. Ad tech liability ruling

    A federal court finds Google unlawfully monopolised the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets and illegally tied DFP to AdX.

    EDVA (Brinkema)

    Source

  4. Search remedies decision

    Behavioural remedies ordered. Chrome divestiture rejected. Data sharing with approved competitors and a syndication pathway required.

    DDC (Mehta)

    Source

  5. Search final judgment

    A six-year framework is finalised, including a five-year syndication pathway for search results and search text ads.

    DDC (Mehta)

    Source

  6. Google files appeal

    Google appeals the search-case data-sharing requirements and oversight. The DOJ and states cross-appeal on 3 February 2026.

    DC Circuit

  7. Stay denied, remedies stand

    The district court denies Google's motion to stay the data-sharing mandate, so the search remedies remain in force during the appeal. Google files its opening appeal brief on 22 May 2026.

    DDC (Mehta) / DC Circuit

  8. Ad tech remedies (pending) Pending

    The ad tech remedies ruling is expected in 2026. The DOJ seeks divestiture of AdX and open-sourcing of the auction logic.

    EDVA (Brinkema)

The remedy points one way: diversification

The search remedies are designed to open the market: capping exclusive defaults, forcing data sharing with approved competitors, and creating a syndication pathway so rival and AI-native search products can compete (TechPolicy.Press).

The market is being restructured around competition. Advertisers who build a second engine now are early to the structure the court is trying to create, rather than late to it.

Keep the expectation measured. The remedies face appeal and a multi-year implementation, and the ad tech remedies are not yet decided. The point is direction of travel, not a promise about your next quarter.

The constructive alternative: Microsoft

From problem to action. Microsoft is the most viable second engine, and it is structurally under-used.

The adoption gap is the arbitrage

Microsoft Advertising is the second-largest search ad platform, yet only around a third of advertisers use it, against roughly four in five on Google (reported, Searchlab). Less competition in the auction is part of why it commonly runs at materially lower CPCs, around 33% lower on average as commonly cited (reported, Searchlab).

A distinct, addressable audience

A desktop-leaning, higher-income, B2B-friendly audience, with LinkedIn Profile Targeting by job title, company and industry available nowhere else. In the UK, Microsoft holds a materially higher desktop search share than its global figure, roughly 14 to 16% .

The surface is growing through AI

Copilot is expanding the Microsoft surface and its share of commercial-intent queries, with reach reported at around 320 million monthly users (reported, Searchlab). Microsoft's AI Max for Search places ads inside Copilot responses, announced April 2026 (DesignRush).

Google is where you spend. Microsoft is where you grow.

The antitrust record is the evidence base for that line, not a replacement for it. See Why Microsoft for the full thesis and The Method for how we prove incremental value.

Figures marked "reported" are from secondary sources and presented as such. The UK desktop share figure is from the site's verified sources (StatCounter, 2026).

For agencies

Concentration risk, as a service

Single-platform dependency is a client risk: one vendor sets the price, owns the data, and can change the rules without notice, as the trial record shows. A credible Microsoft specialism lets an agency offer clients a hedge and a second growth lever. We support that white-label or on a referral basis.

For Agencies (white-label) Talk to us

Google antitrust: advertiser FAQ

Does this mean Google Ads is going away?

No. This is diversification, not migration. Google remains the largest line in almost every plan and should stay that way. The case for a second engine is about reducing single-platform dependency, not leaving Google.

Is it safe to keep spending on Google during the appeals?

Yes. The point is reducing dependency, not exit. The liability findings are under appeal and the remedies face a multi-year implementation. Nothing here is a reason to stop spending where demand is captured; it is a reason to build a hedge.

Did the rulings lower my CPCs?

No. The remedies target market structure, such as default deals, data sharing and syndication, not your individual account. They are also under appeal. Do not expect a direct change to your auction prices because of the rulings.

What exactly did the courts find?

Two separate US federal courts found Google liable for unlawful monopolies: one in general search and search text advertising (August 2024), and one in publisher ad servers and ad exchanges with an illegal tie (April 2025). Both are civil antitrust findings, and Google is appealing.

Why Microsoft rather than another alternative?

Scale and fit. Microsoft Advertising is the second-largest search ad platform, commonly runs at materially lower CPCs, offers LinkedIn Profile Targeting available nowhere else, and is growing its surface through Copilot. It is the most viable second engine for most advertisers.

How quickly can we stand up a Microsoft channel?

A clean platform-native build typically goes live within the first weeks of access. The meaningful read on incremental value comes from a quarter-long incrementality test. Start with an audit, which quantifies the opportunity before you commit.

Are you saying Google did something criminal?

No. These are civil antitrust matters, not criminal cases. We state the findings as findings: a federal court ruled, trial evidence showed. Google denies wrongdoing and is appealing the liability findings and elements of the remedies.

Sources and further reading

Weighted to primary documents first, then reputable analysis. Last reviewed 30 June 2026.

Reduce single-platform dependency, on your own numbers.

A fixed-fee audit that quantifies the incremental revenue a properly optimised Microsoft channel can add, before you commit.

Book an audit Send a brief
A one-page "Advertiser's guide to the Google antitrust rulings" is in preparation. Ask us for an early copy.