Breaking Down the Two Major 2025 Antitrust Rulings Against Google

The U.S. government’s antitrust campaign against Google has reached a critical juncture, with two landmark 2025 court rulings exposing distinct facets of the tech giant’s dominance. While both cases found Google guilty of monopolistic practices, they targeted fundamentally different markets: one dismantling Google’s stranglehold on advertising technology, the other challenging its supremacy in online search. These twin verdicts—one focusing on the hidden plumbing of digital ad auctions, the other on consumer-facing search engines—reveal how regulators are deploying antitrust laws to confront Big Tech’s sprawling influence across both visible and invisible layers of the digital economy. The rulings mark a strategic escalation in efforts to reshape competition in markets where data, algorithms, and network effects create self-reinforcing monopolies.

Subject Matter

• April 2025 RulingFocused on advertising technology ("ad tech"), specifically Google’s dominance in:

  • Publisher ad servers (DoubleClick for Publishers, ~90% market share)

  • Ad exchanges (Google AdX, ~80% market share) The court rejected claims about advertiser ad networks (e.g., Google Ads), finding competition from Meta and Amazon sufficient.

    
    

• Earlier 2025 RulingAddressed Google’s monopoly in general search services and search-related advertising, including:

  • Exclusionary contracts with device makers (e.g., Apple)

  • Anti-competitive bundling of search engines like Chrome.

Legal Findings

• April 2025:

  • Violated Sherman Act §§1 and 2 by:

    • Tying DFP to AdX (forcing publishers to use both)

    • Manipulating ad auctions (e.g., "Project Bernanke")

  • Acquiring DoubleClick/AdMeld was not deemed anticompetitive.

    
    

• Earlier 2025:

  • Violated Sherman Act §2 by:

    • Monopolizing search via exclusive contracts

    • Creating a "feedback loop" that entrenched dominance.

Markets Affected

Aspect	April 2025 Case	Earlier 2025 Case
Primary Market	Ad tech (publisher tools, exchanges)	General search engines
Key Products	DFP, AdX	Google Search, Chrome
Rejected Claims	Advertiser ad networks	None reported

Remedies Sought

• April 2025:

  • Divestiture of Google Ad Manager (DFP + AdX)

  • Behavioral changes (e.g., auction transparency).

    
    

• Earlier 2025:

  • Divestiture of Chrome or termination of exclusive search deals (e.g., with Apple)

  • Restructuring search algorithms to avoid self-preferencing.

    
    

Google’s Response

• April 2025:"We won half of this case [on advertiser tools] and will appeal the other half" – Google VP Lee-Anne Mulholland.

  
  

• Earlier 2025:Google appealed the search ruling, calling it "flawed" and harmful to consumers.

  
  

Broader Implications

• Ad Tech Ruling: Could dismantle Google’s $100B+ ad tech stack, benefiting publishers and rivals like Amazon.

  
  

• Search Ruling: Threatens Google’s core revenue model (search ads) and partnerships.

  
  

Both rulings signal a new era of antitrust enforcement targeting Big Tech’s control over digital infrastructure. The ad tech decision is narrower but structurally consequential, while the search ruling challenges Google’s foundational business model.

---

Howard Law is a business and M&A law firm in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, with additional services in M&A advisory and business brokerage. Howard Law is a law firm based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area focused on business law, corporate law, mergers & acquisitions, M&A advisor and business brokerage. Handling all business matters from incorporation to acquisition as well as a comprehensive understanding in assisting through mergers and acquisition. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information on this website is for general and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. Information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.