Google loses online ad monopoly case. But it’s just one of many antitrust battles against big tech
- Written by: Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney
Tech giant Google has just suffered another legal blow in the United States, losing a landmark antitrust case. This follows on from the company’s loss in a similar case last year.
Social media giant Meta is also currently embroiled in a landmark legal battle in the US that could change not only how it operates, but how millions of people around the world communicate.
Hearings in the Meta case commenced earlier this week in a court in Washington DC, after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg failed to settle the case for US$450 million. Brought by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the suit alleges Meta broke antitrust laws and illegally secured a monopoly over social media platforms.
Along with Google and Meta, Amazon and Apple are also currently facing significant antitrust challenges in the US.
All of these actions are continuing despite major changes in both the FTC and the US Department of Justice as a result of the election of Donald Trump.
Collectively, these cases represent a substantial regulatory push to examine and potentially curb the market power of big tech. So what are all of these cases about exactly? What are the next steps in each of them? And what might they mean for consumers?
The cases against Google
The case Google just lost was related to online advertising.
The US Department of Justice alleged Google had behaved anticompetitively to monopolise the complex digital advertising technology market. This market facilitates the buying and selling of online ads.
The US district judge, Leonie Brinkema, agreed Google has a monopoly over the tools used by online publishers to host ad space, and the software that facilitates transactions between online publishers and advertisers.
In her ruling, Judge Brinkema said Google had “wilfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts” which ultimately resulted in it obtaining “monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market”.
Google has said it will appeal the decision. The Department of Justice will ask the court to require Google to divest parts of its ad tech business when the remedies phase of this trial starts later this month.
The second case involving Google is related to internet search.
The Department of Justice argued Google used exclusionary agreements, such as paying Apple billions annually to be the default search engine on iPhones, to lock out competitors.
In August 2024, a federal judge ruled Google acted illegally to maintain its search monopoly.
The case has now moved to the remedies phase. A crucial remedies trial is scheduled to begin next week. During this, the court will hear arguments on what actions should be taken against Google. Potential remedies could be significant, with regulators previously suggesting measures such as restrictions on Google’s Android operating system or even forcing the sale of its Chrome browser.
Google has stated its intention to appeal this ruling as well.
The case against Meta
The FTC’s case against Meta alleges the tech giant illegally maintained a monopoly in the market for “personal social networking services”.
The core of the FTC’s argument is that Meta employed a “buy-or-bury” strategy to eliminate competitive threats.
This allegedly involved acquiring nascent rivals, most notably Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014, specifically to neutralise them before they could challenge Facebook’s dominance.
The FTC points to internal communications as evidence of anticompetitive intent. These include Mark Zuckerberg’s statement, “It is better to buy than compete”. They also include an internal memo which showed Zuckerberg considered spinning off Instagram in 2018 over concerns about antitrust scrutiny.
The commission argues Meta’s actions stifled innovation and harmed consumers by limiting choices. It’s seeking to force Meta to divest, or sell off, both Instagram and WhatsApp.
Meta vigorously defends its actions. It argues it does not hold a monopoly, facing fierce competition from platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter).
The company contends the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were pro-competitive, allowing Meta to invest billions to improve and scale the apps, ultimately benefiting users. A key defence point is that the FTC itself reviewed and approved both deals over a decade ago.
The trial is expected to last eight weeks.
The cases against Apple and Amazon
In March 2024, the Department of Justice, along with several states, sued Apple, alleging it illegally maintains a monopoly in the smartphone market.
The lawsuit claims Apple uses its control over the iPhone ecosystem to stifle competition and innovation by, for example, degrading messaging quality between iPhones and Android devices and limiting the functionality of third-party digital wallets and smartwatches.
Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case in August 2024. The litigation is in its early stages and is expected to continue for several years.
In September 2023, the FTC, joined by numerous states, also sued Amazon.
The lawsuit alleges the tech giant unlawfully maintains monopoly power in both the market for “online superstores” (where consumers shop) and “online marketplace services” (for third-party sellers).
The FTC claims Amazon uses interlocking anticompetitive tactics. These include punishing sellers for offering lower prices elsewhere, coercing sellers into using its services, degrading search results with excessive ads, and charging exorbitant seller fees.
In late 2024, the presiding judge largely denied Amazon’s attempt to dismiss the core federal claims, allowing the case to proceed.
A trial is currently scheduled for October 2026.
Major structural changes could come
Taken together, these lawsuits represent the most significant antitrust enforcement push against major technology firms in the US in decades. They signal a fundamental re-examination of how competition laws apply to fast-evolving digital platforms and ecosystems.
The outcomes could potentially lead to major structural changes. These changes could include the forced breakup of companies such as Meta, or significant behavioural remedies restricting how these firms operate.
Regardless of the specific results, the decisions in these cases will likely set crucial legal precedents. In turn, these will profoundly shape the future competitive landscape for technology. They will also likely influence regulation globally, and impact innovation and investment across the digital economy.
What the cases do not reflect is the change in independence of regulatory bodies in the US, where consistency with White House policy is now paramount. The outcomes will surely test the relationship between Trump and the “tech bros” who’ve, quite literally, been at his side recently.
Authors: Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney
