Last week, a federal judge in Virginia concluded that Google illegally dominated two online advertising technology marketplaces in the U.S. The ruling is part of the antitrust case the tech giant has been facing in that country in recent years.

According to the judge, the company illegally monopolized the markets for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. The judge, however, wrote that antitrust authorities failed to prove that Google had a monopoly in advertiser networks.

The Virginia judge’s ruling could allow the DOJ to argue for a breakup of Google’s advertising products, including its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and its ad exchange platform. Meanwhile, a Washington judge will also soon hold a trial on the DOJ’s request to force Google to sell its Chrome browser and take other steps to end its dominance in online search.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took its first action against Google in 2020, alleging the company engaged in monopolistic behavior in online search. Two years later, the DOJ filed another lawsuit, this time focusing on Google’s digital advertising technology practices. The 2023 lawsuit claims Google illegally monopolized multiple digital advertising products, including publisher ad servers, advertiser ad networks and ad exchanges, stifling competition and harming publishers and advertisers. With Google controlling up to 91% of the ad server market, the DOJ argued that this has limited competition and driven up prices.

This isn’t the only antitrust complaint the company is dealing with.

Google is facing another significant antitrust case in the U.K., where a potential £5.36 billion ($6.62 billion) class action lawsuit has been filed. The lawsuit alleges that the company abused its dominant position in the digital economy to exclude competitors from the overall search ad market, allowing it to charge higher prices for search ads. It says Google partnered with phone makers to pre-install Google Search and the Chrome browser on Android devices and paid Apple to make it the default search engine on iPhones, with the intention of excluding its competitors.

After an extensive 18-month investigation, Japan’s Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has also found Google to be monopolistic and has issued a cease and desist order. The Commission is directing Google to stop preinstalling its search engines in Android smartphone and says that for nearly five years, Google has prevented other search services to function on specified Android smartphones. 

The JFTC investigation began in 2023, with input from foreign regulators in the U.S. and Europe. This is the first time the JFTC has taken such action against a major global tech company.

Robin LeGassicke, chief transformation officer for Cairns Oneil, tells MiC that the industry is watching to see how the trial’s outcome could impact digital advertising not only in the U.S. but also in Canada.

However, for the recent ruling out of the U.S., “it’s still early to predict the outcome and impact. The court will need to determine what impositions are made to Google to alleviate the regulatory concerns,” LeGassicke says, adding that there will likely be years before changes with any kind of impact are made. So, for marketers, the impact will be limited until that happens.

“It’s a similar answer to the Japan decision. It will take some time for the roll out of the decision and to know the impact,” LeGassicke says. “To not have the browser pre-installed may change the reach and utilization but users will be free to add the app once the device is in their hands.”

Simon Ross, VP of strategy and insights at Horizon Media Canada, says, “This ruling sets a global tone and could embolden Canadian regulators, like the Competition Bureau, to ramp up scrutiny of dominant tech platforms. It may also serve as a legal and procedural roadmap for local antitrust investigations. Notably, the progression of the Meta antitrust case from 2020, now gaining momentum, suggests a broader global push for platform accountability is underway.”

If enforcement actions reduce Google’s ability to prioritize its own services or secure default status (especially via exclusive deals with device makers), Ross says other search engines or digital players could gain ground. “For Canadian media, this opens the door to more discoverability, traffic share, and reduced dependency on a single platform,” he notes.

“A more competitive market could foster innovation and increase consumer choice. For advertisers, that means a greater need for agility and experimentation, balancing trusted partners with emerging platforms. For Canadian-owned tech and media, it could mean renewed opportunity to scale,” he says.

“While the direct impact on Canada isn’t immediate, the ruling is a strong signal that platform power is being questioned. This could reshape media planning, tech partnerships, and consumer behaviour over time. Horizon and the broader Canadian market should remain vigilant, adaptable, and open to recalibrating strategies as the landscape evolves.”