Google’s Search Antitrust Ruling: What Advertisers Should Check Next
All Paid Media PPC News Social MediaAdvertising Video Advertising Columns Ask A PPC ExpertNEW PPC Pulse Guide AI Max Invalid Traffic Doubled, Weeks Before Black Friday Invalid traffic on AI Max search doubled to 5.28%. Get the channel-by-channel retail benchmarks before Black Friday. Digital Marketing All Digital Marketing Analytics & Data Ecommerce Lead Generation Content Marketing Social Platforms Google YouTube Reddit LinkedIn TikTokNEW WordPress Other CMS Platforms Guide Your ChatGPT Calls Are Hiding in the 'Direct/Other' Bucket Calls from ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity land in 'direct/other.' This checklist shows six steps to track them as their own source. SEJ Live Webinars Rundowns PodcastNEW Ebooks All Resources Ebook State Of Search 2027 Where search leaders are putting 2027 budget, plus the AI visibility scorecard that replaces session reporting. Mark Beckett 1 minute ago ⋅ 8 min read Mark Beckett Bio Follow Editorial Reviewed: Jennifer McDonald Editorial Reviewed This post was sponsored by Silver Arbitration Law, PLLC. The opinions expressed in this article are the sponsor’s own. If you manage Google Search campaigns, you have explained rising CPCs many times: more competitors, broader match types, a lower Quality Score, an account that needed restructuring. Each explanation is plausible. I have worked in arbitration since before Google existed, as both counsel and arbitrator. Below I set out what the record shows: what the court found, which auction changes it named and when they ran, and what you would have to establish about your own account before any of it applies to you. In August 2024, after a ten-week trial, the court found that Google “has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads” (Mem. Op. at 4). Supracompetitive means above the price a competitive market would produce. The trial record showed that Google’s ads team used internal “pricing knobs” that raised what a winning ad paid without any change in bids, ad quality or competition, mostly by inflating the runner-up’s score that sets the winner’s CPC. Four of these instances have date ranges you can check against your own account: Advertisers were not told. Google’s Vice President of Ads testified: “We tend not to tell advertisers about pricing changes” (Tr. 1226, Dischler). The court found that “[m]any advertisers do not even realize that Google is responsible for the changes in price” (Mem. Op. at 91–93, 260). Individual advertisers still need to establish whether they were affected and by how much. The first step is to get informed, and there are two ways to do it. You can ask an arbitration lawyer to assess your account; I do this for advertisers, and you can book a short call with me. Or you can read up on the case first: this research prompt has an AI assistant brief you on what the courts found and whether it fits a business like yours. The search ruling covers general search text ads. The court did not find a monopoly in the broader market for all search advertising, which includes ads sold by retailers such as Amazon and Walmart. If much of your spend went to Shopping or Performance Max, separate the text-ad portion before drawing conclusions about your account. This research prompt has an AI assistant tell you which ad types and years of spend count. Note which legal entity accepted Google’s advertising terms and paid the invoices, and which agencies or manager accounts ran the campaigns and when. Those details determine who can review the account and who would raise any claim, and they are the first thing counsel will ask for. Display spend falls under a second ruling. On April 17, 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Google had monopolized two parts of the display advertising chain. That case focused largely on publishers, and the court did not accept every market claim the government brought. If you bought display inventory through Google’s ad tech tools, it raises a separate question about how those transactions worked. Which ruling matters to you depends on the products you used and the years you used them. Court findings in this article are quoted with a page cite to the opinion. Anything cited to an exhibit number (UPX, DX) or a transcript (Tr., Dep.) is a trial exhibit or sworn testimony, most of it Google’s own. The two are not the same: a finding is what the court concluded; an exhibit is evidence the court heard. Google disagrees with the ruling and is appealing. The court’s September 2025 remedies decision requires Google to disclose material changes to its ad auction publicly. Advertisers should therefore have more information about changes that affect what they pay. Google’s advertising terms contain an arbitration clause. Advertisers bound by that clause must pursue covered disputes through individual arbitration and waive the right to bring a class action. Each advertiser pursuing such a claim brings it through the American Arbitration Association. The court’s findings provide a starting point; reviewing an account and deciding whether to file remain separate steps. Whoever paid for the ads holds the claim, and anything paid out on it goes back to them. If your agency ran the campaigns and you paid the bills, the claim is yours. Your agency can pull the spend history, name the campaigns and years involved, and help you take the questions above to a lawyer. If you have questions about Google-related risk or what to consider before pursuing a claim, you can book a short call with our team. The call is free and nothing is shared with Google. Featured Image: Image by Silver Arbitration. Used with permission. In-Post Images: Images by Silver Arbitration. Used with permission. Attorney Advertising. Mark Beckett, attorney admitted in New York. This article is sponsored by Silver Arbitration Law, PLLC. It is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Claims against Google are pursued through individual arbitration under Google’s Terms of Service, not in court. Quotations from court opinions are reproduced verbatim from the published decisions in United States v. Google LLC*, D.D.C. (Aug. 5, 2024) and* United States v. Google LLC*, E.D. Va. (Apr. 17, 2025).* Not affiliated with or endorsed by Google LLC. Add SEJ as a preferred source on Google Read Full Bio Mark Beckett Mark Beckett is a Principal at Dan Tan Law with more than 30 years of experience handling complex international arbitration ... Breaking news and insights to help you lead search strategies. Shopify Now Enrolls Your Store In Every New AI Shopping Channel Why Data Integrity Is The New Technical SEO: From Crawling To Trust Cloudflare Will Write Your Robots.txt, And It Has A Point Check whether the Google ads rulings apply to your business. Book a free assessment The AI Search & SEO News That Matters Breaking news and insights to help you lead search strategies. Add SEJ as a preferred source on Google A New Place To Look: Where Your Next AI Citations & Clicks Come From In a world ruled by algorithms, SEJ brings timely, relevant information for SEOs, marketers, and entrepreneurs to optimize and grow their businesses -- and careers.
Source: Search Engine Journal
This article has been carefully curated and reformatted for educational and informational purposes. Full credit goes to the original publisher.
📚 Visit more helpful articles on Joab Peters Blog
No comments