Lisa Macpherson is policy director at Public Knowledge.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai talks before a dinner with President Donald Trump and Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the State Dining Room of the White House, Thursday, March 19, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
On March 19, 2026, a federal judge in Virginia issued an order regarding remedies in the ongoing Google ad-tech antitrust case, and the implications are profound. For those of us who have followed the evolving landscape of digital advertising, this decision is disappointing, and it should resonate with all consumers, even if you aren’t a policy expert.
In a post I authored for Tech Policy Press in the fall of 2024, I emphasized the significance of the Google ad tech case. Drawing from my extensive experience in digital advertising since the 1990s, I argued that Google’s monopolistic control over the ad tech market harms various stakeholders: advertisers and publishers struggle under its dominance, but ultimately, consumers bear the brunt of its detrimental practices. These range from privacy violations and disinformation to stifling innovation and increasing the cost of goods and services.
The crux of Judge Leonie Brinkema’s ruling is that Google is indeed an illegal monopolist in the advertising technology sector. In her landmark April 2025 ruling, she found that Google’s strategy to consolidate its ad tech stack into its Ad Exchange (AdX) constitutes anti-competitive behavior. This consolidation facilitated additional harmful practices like price manipulation, tying, and self-preferencing, resulting in inflated advertising costs for advertisers while limiting visibility for publishers who required stronger paywalls to maintain their businesses.
Despite urging Judge Brinkema to enforce robust remedies that would serve the public interest, the recent remedies order falls short. It does not compel Google to divest itself of AdX or implement any significant structural changes. Instead, Google retains ownership of both its ad server and the exchange, effectively preserving the conflict of interest that comes with that control. While the decision changes the operational dynamics of its auctions, the potential for meaningful change largely hinges on the effective enforcement of these new rules.
The ruling illustrates a broader issue: the sluggish pace of litigation when addressing anti-competitive behaviors from tech giants operating within fast-moving market environments. Changes are needed that exceed mere judicial decisions. For instance, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) proposing to ban self-preferencing, tying, and the misuse of private data was reintroduced in the Senate in June of this year. This legislation aims to ensure greater competition and accountability in digital marketplaces.
Moreover, the Advertising Middlemen Endangering Rigorous Internet Competition Accountability Act (AMERICA Act), also reintroduced in 2025, specifically targets the ad tech sector. Key provisions include restricting dominant firms from controlling multiple facets of the ad-buying and selling process—such as owning both an ad exchange and a publisher tool— significantly encouraging competition.
To proactively adapt to the evolving landscape, there’s also a pressing need for dedicated, ongoing regulatory oversight of digital markets. The recent decision, in its current form, provides inadequate measures to dismantle Google’s stranglehold on the advertising ecosystem. As I previously articulated, to foster a healthier digital advertising system, it’s crucial to facilitate greater competition and consumer choice. The recent ruling does little to advance this imperative.
Inspired by: Source
