Google's antitrust cases: what the rulings mean for advertisers in 2026
Updated: Nov 3
First published 30th September 2024. Updated 25th October 2026 to cover the 2025 and 2026 remedies decisions.
When we first wrote about the US case against Google in 2024, the court had found that Google held an illegal monopoly in general search, but the consequences were unknown. Two years on, both major US cases have reached remedies decisions. The outcomes are more measured than many predicted and the practical effect on advertisers is gradual rather than sudden.
The search case
In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia found that Google unlawfully maintained its monopoly in general search, largely through exclusive default agreements with browsers and device makers.
His remedies decision on 2nd September 2025 stopped well short of a break-up:
No forced sale of Chrome or Android
No ban on paying for default placement, so Google can still pay Apple and others to be the default search engine
No more exclusive contracts for Search, Chrome, Google Assistant or Gemini
Data sharing with qualified competitors, including some search index and user interaction data
Both sides have appealed. The Department of Justice and most participating states argue the remedies are too weak and Google is appealing the original liability finding while seeking to pause the data-sharing requirement. The appeals could take many months to resolve.
The ad tech case
In April 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Google illegally monopolised publisher ad servers and ad exchanges and unlawfully tied the two together.
In September 2026 she declined the Department of Justice's request to force a sale of AdX, Google's ad exchange. Instead the court imposed behavioural remedies for six years, against the 15 sought by the government. Publishers using Google's ad server will no longer be required to use AdX, rival ad servers are expected to gain better access to real-time bids from AdX and Google must appoint an antitrust compliance monitor. Further appeals remain possible.
What has actually changed for advertisers
Established:
Google Search and its advertising products continue to operate as before. Search ads remain the largest single source of intent-based demand in most markets
Default search placements on devices and browsers will become less locked in over time, which may modestly broaden competition for search queries
Publishers will gain more choice in how their ad inventory is sold, which over time may change pricing and inventory available through programmatic buying
Uncertain:
Whether data sharing will produce meaningful new search competitors, given the scale advantage Google already holds
The effect on cost per click, which is driven far more by auction competition and automated bidding than by these rulings
Whether regulators outside the US will follow. Competition authorities in Europe, the UK, Japan and Australia have their own investigations and rules for digital platforms
What advertisers should do now
Plan for diversification on evidence, not headlines. Discovery is spreading across Google, AI assistants, retail media, social and video platforms. Allocate budget to where incremental return can be measured, not to escape Google for its own sake
Own your measurement. Use your own analytics, marketing mix modelling and incrementality tests, so decisions do not rest on any single platform's reporting
Strengthen first-party data. Consented customer data improves bidding on every platform and reduces dependence on any one of them
Watch programmatic supply. For advertisers buying open-web display and video, changes in how publishers sell inventory may create better transparency and pricing over the next two years
Keep search strong. Search remains a primary source of high-intent demand. The rulings change the market around it slowly. They do not reduce its importance
The headlines suggested an imminent break-up of Google. The reality is a gradual opening of the market, with appeals still to run. The sensible response is steady: measure independently, diversify where the evidence supports it and keep investing in the channels that are working.
Sources: United States v. Google LLC, remedies opinion, US District Court for the District of Columbia, 2nd September 2025; Bloomberg Law, appeal filings, February 2026; United States v. Google LLC, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, liability opinion April 2025 and remedies decision September 2026; PYMNTS, 17th September 2026
