Google’s Antitrust Reckoning: A Landmark Judgment And A Strategic Opening For Indian Publishers

In a judgment that could well mark a watershed in the evolution of digital competition law, the US District Court presided over by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has found Google LLC guilty of violating US antitrust laws. The ruling, delivered with forensic precision, finds Google's dominance over the digital advertising ecosystem not merely overwhelming, but unlawfully fortified through exclusionary conduct, with all gentleness of a sledgehammer in a glassware.

The 115-page opinion finds Google’s stranglehold on digital advertising not merely dominant but unlawfully orchestrated — and holds them liable under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the very backbone of American competition law. Google now stands exposed for practices that stifled competition, coerced publishers and distorted the very architecture of the internet. For India, the Competition Commission of India ( CCI), which is already probing Google’s adtech hegemony, the ruling is not just a precedent — it is a clarion signal to swing into action.

For the global digital ecosystem — and particularly for Indian stakeholders — the implications are profound.

The Court's Findings: Anatomy Of A Digital Monster

Anticompetitive Conduct, Meticulously Proven: The plaintiffs — comprising the US Department of Justice and a coalition of state attorneys general — compellingly demonstrated that Google's dominance was not the natural byproduct of innovation or superior efficiency. Rather, it was the result of a calculated campaign: to neutralise and eliminate competition, entrench monopolistic control, and camouflage this strategy behind the veneer of a "better user experience”. The court, quite rightly, was unmoved and with surgical clarity saw through the facade.

Tying of Services — Indissoluble Union and an Unholy Matrimony of Ad Tech (Double Click/ Google Ad Manager): At the heart of the anticompetitive scheme lay Google’s ad server (DoubleClick/Google Ad Manager) and its ad exchange (AdX), tied together with contractual and technological threads so tight that publishers had no meaningful choice. "Take both or Take nothing" — Google told the publishers. This foreclosure of competitive alternatives was neither incidental nor accidental. It was by design. It just did not even limit choice, it obliterated competitions’ oxygen supply.

Feature Degradation — Innovation in Reverse: The court highlighted a particularly insidious tactic: Google selectively degraded features or withheld improvements — not to drive efficiency, but to strategically cripple rival exchanges. In other words, the deliberate degradation of features was not a technical necessity but to cripple rival exchanges. In an ecosystem that lionises innovation, Google innovated in limiting interoperability. 

Harm Across the Value Chain: The fallout of these actions was indiscriminate and the real victims were not only Google’s competitors but also publishers, who faced escalating costs and dwindling returns; advertisers, who were deprived of a genuinely competitive marketplace as they navigated a market rigged against fairness; and consumers, who ultimately paid more for less in an increasingly surveillance-driven web economy. Thus, while users gleefully clicked "skip ad”, they were inadvertently underwriting or were bankrolling a digital monopoly/ empire of historic proportions.

Violations of the Sherman Act — A Double Strike: The court unequivocally held Google guilty of: Section 1 violations (unreasonable restraints of trade), and Section 2 violations (monopolization and attempted monopolization).
In courtroom terms, this was akin to being found guilty of both orchestrating the heist and burning down the building afterward or should we say being caught in rigging the game and then burning the rulebook. Brazen, even by Big Tech standards.

Implications — A Tectonic Shift in the Digital Order and redefining digital governance: This is no mere judicial reprimand/admonishment but it is a loud and unequivocally clear call to regulators, courts, and policymakers across the world. It is a seismic rupture in Big Tech’s invincibility myth.

• Remedies with Teeth on the Horizon: Google now faces the prospect of structural remedies — potentially a forced divestiture of its ad-tech empire — or stringent behavioral mandates. The adage "too big to regulate" has, at least for now, been discredited.
• The Rebalancing of Ad Markets: A less monopolised marketplace could unleash innovation, reduce ad-tech fees, and restore publishers' bargaining power — changes long overdue.
• A Signal to Global Antitrust Authorities: From Brussels to New Delhi, antitrust regulators will undoubtedly view this ruling as a green light to pursue similar actions. The era of Silicon Valley exceptionalism may well be drawing to a close.

ALSO READ ON ABP LIVE | Game Of Clones: Why Protecting Indian Innovators From Copycat Invasion Is Vital

For Indian Publishers, An Unmissable Strategic Moment

For Indian publishers, particularly those who have filed complaints before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), this US judgment is not just welcome news — it is strategic artillery. The CCI with its proven mettle (evidenced by thousands of crores of penalty in the past) is poised to act decisively. Publishers must therefore harvest this moment with legal acumen and collective resolve.

Use the Precedent, Skillfully:  While U.S. judgments are not binding in India, they are often highly persuasive, especially when evidencing global patterns of anticompetitive behavior. Indian publishers must swiftly file supplementary submissions before the CCI, highlighting that the very practices they alleged have now been judicially validated across the Atlantic.

Press for Interim Relief: Publishers must no longer be content with glacial proceedings. The CCI has powers to grant interim relief under Section 33 of the Competition Act — including orders compelling Google to halt exclusionary practices pending the outcome of the case. The U.S. ruling strengthens the grounds for urgent intervention by Indian Publishers by filing supplementary submissions and also filing for interim orders under section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002 which grants (CCI) the power to issue interim orders during an inquiry into a contravention of sections 3(1), 4(1), or 6 of the Act. These interim orders can temporarily restrain any party from engaging in the activity in question, even without prior notice, if the CCI deems it necessary to do so. The purpose of such interim measures is to protect the rights of parties and the competitive structure of the market until a final decision can be reached. Publishers must therefore press for mandates compelling Google to unbundle its ad server and exchange or ensure non-discriminatory access halting market foreclosure while investigations proceed.

Demand and Advocate Structural Remedies: It is time to move beyond mere fines (which, for tech giants, are treated as rounding errors- though symbolically potent are mere pinpricks to google s coffers). Structural remedies such as unbundling Google's ad server and exchange businesses, or mandating fair access rules/ open interoperability, to dismantle monopolistic barriers permanently must be sought with clarity and resolve.

Diversify Strategically: Publishers may also actively explore alternative ad-tech platforms — be it The Trade Desk, Magnite, or emerging Indian players. Reducing dependency on Google is no longer merely prudent — it is a strategic necessity.

Shape Public Opinion and Mobilise Narrative Power: Indian publishers, with their rich legacy of storytelling, must engage the public and policymakers alike. A campaign framing this as a battle for India's digital sovereignty — "India’s publishers deserve a free and fair digital marketplace" — can galvanise both sentiment and regulatory momentum.

The CCI, already seasoned in handling complex Big Tech cases (notably the ₹2,274 crore penalty imposed on Google in the Android matter), is unlikely to let this opportunity slip.

ALSO READ ON ABP LIVE | Call For Reform: Vagueness, Subjectivity, Ambiguity Should Go From Advertising And Programming Code

Toward A Freer Digital Future

Judge Brinkema’s ruling stands as a milestone — not because it denigrates success, but because it reminds us that success achieved through exclusion, coercion, and market distortion is not success at all; it is anticompetitive abuse, plain and simple. For Google, this is a sobering moment of introspection.

For publishers and competitors worldwide, it is a rare and precious opening. And for consumers, it is — hopefully — the first step toward reclaiming the open web from behind the velvet ropes of monopolistic control.

The digital world awaits the remedy phase with bated breath. Whether this becomes a mere footnote or a historic turning point will depend on whether regulators — in the US, in India, and beyond — have the courage to follow through. 

One thing, however, is certain: the myth of Big Tech invincibility has been irrevocably  shattered. The future of the open internet has, finally, found a fighting chance.

(The author is an independent counsel and columnist)

Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs, and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and views of ABP Network Pvt. Ltd.

blog