As Google’s DOJ trial unfolds, some small businesses defend the platform’s cost-effective ad solutions, while critics argue its monopolistic practices stifle competition and transparency.
Google is in the global antitrust hot seat right now, with all eyes watching the current DOJ trial accusing the tech conglomerate of running an ad tech monopoly. The DOJ argues that Big G operates three monopolies — ad tech, search, and the Android app.
In her opening statement, DOJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema that Google’s control over multiple areas of the tech ecosystem is particularly harmful, stating, “One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here.”
The DOJ alleges that Google manipulates the ad tech market, and gate keeps tools used by publishers, advertisers, and brokers, allowing it to pocket at least 30% of every advertising dollar. This has led to reduced earnings for web publishers and increased costs for advertisers.
The trial, expected to last 4-6 weeks, may prove more damaging to Google than previous cases, with the DOJ seeking to break up parts of Google’s ad business, specifically its Ad Manager suite. Experts suggest that if Google loses, it could lead to significant restructuring, possibly splitting the company into separate entities for search and advertising.
Yet, industry opinions differ about how this should play out.
On one side of the docket, some small publishers and business owners assert that small businesses rely heavily on Google’s display advertising platform as it provides an effective and cost-efficient way to reach customers.
On the other hand, opposing opinions, like the organization Check My Ads assert that Google’s harmful practices, prioritizing opacity over quality, are finally being challenged in court, paving the way to restore market fairness and a healthier information economy.
The Plight of Small Businesses: Google Ads as a Cost-Effective Solution
At a Connected Commerce Council Press Conference about the case, small publishers discussed how breaking up Google’s display ad business could lead to higher advertising costs, more complexity in managing multiple ad platforms, and potentially less relevant ads. This would negatively impact small businesses’ ability to market and grow their companies effectively.
Here’s what some small businesses had to say:
Lakita Anderson, who runs the recipe website Simply Lakita, emphasized how display ads are now her “main revenue source” and that losing this revenue model would “mess up a system that works well” for her business. She explained that without the easy integration and management that Google’s platform provides, she would have to “bring in a person to manage all the different platforms,” which would be challenging for her small team.
Pavlo Prannyk, co-founder of olpr. Leather Goods Co., voiced concerns about potentially having to pay more for advertising if the ruling breaks up Google’s display business. He noted that Google ads are currently the best money he can make on his digital marketing spend, and he is worried about not having access to this cost-effective solution. Pavlo stated, “I just don’t want it to be as expensive as it is right now.”
Salil Gandhi, owner of digital marketing firm SBO Buzz, argued that the DOJ lawsuit needs to make more sense from the perspective of his clients. He explained that most of his small business clients have monthly ad budgets under $500, so “saving an extra nickel or two on your display ads isn’t going to impact you that much.” However, the added complexity and time required to manage multiple ad platforms would far outweigh the cost savings that breaking up Google could provide. Salil emphasized that Google’s integrated tools and free services are crucial for enabling small businesses to effectively advertise online.
The evidence shows that some have benefited from Google’s “dominance,” but dissenting opinions have plenty of criticism for Google’s alleged monopolistic practices.
Challenging Google’s Image as a Small Business Advocate…and Further Regulations
On the other side of the fence, it’s believed that, for publishers and advertisers, the trial will expose how Google’s dominance has led to overcharges and lost revenues, especially for smaller players who lack alternatives. They argue that Google’s portrayal of itself as a small business advocate will likely be challenged, revealing a history of opaque practices and incentives undermining trust in their platforms. The trial could spark global regulatory changes that demand more transparency and fairness to create a healthier environment for competition.
According to Arielle Garcia, Director of Intelligence at Check My Ads, the DOJ’s case against Google aims to introduce structural changes to the ad tech industry. The first step in remedying this would be to divest from Google’s sell-side tools. Taking away investment from the tools would curb Google’s alleged ad tech monopoly.
“The DOJ understands that controlling user data is at the core of Google’s power. With the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority now addressing similar issues, pressure on Google is mounting,” says Garcia. “The hope is that any remedies will break up Google’s control and address broader industry challenges by rebalancing the market.”
Garcia adds that the trial will also draw attention to Google’s profound control over digital advertising and, by extension, the information economy. Google’s actions have redefined the market, setting a precedent for opacity and a lack of accountability while favoring their platforms over competition.
She argues that “by manipulating the auction process and profiting from conflicting roles as buyer and seller, Google has damaged publishers and advertisers.”
If the DOJ succeeds, Garcia argues that divestiture alone will not be enough. Broader regulations are needed to ensure transparency and competition in digital advertising, particularly for ad placements and pricing.
Advertisers and publishers must be empowered to know where their ads appear, what they are paying for, and who they are supporting. The trial could also reignite conversations around legislation like the AMERICA Act, further pushing for reforms that dismantle the opaque and often harmful practices that have allowed disinformation to thrive unchecked.