> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # DOJ and Eight States Sue Google Over Digital Advertising, Alleging a 15-Year Monopoly Campaign - URL: https://www.theamericanquorum.com/taq-historical-2023-01-28-tech/ - Published: 2023-01-29T04:59:00.000Z - Updated: 2023-01-29T04:59:00.000Z - Description: The Justice Department and eight states accuse Google of monopolizing key digital-ad markets through acquisitions, tying and auction practices, while Google says the case misunderstands a competitive industry. - Author: Kenneth R. Deans Jr. - Tags: Tech, #Import 2026-08-31 21:55 The Justice Department and eight states sued Google this week, alleging that the company spent roughly 15 years building and protecting monopolies across the technologies that publishers and advertisers use to buy and sell digital display advertising. The civil complaint, filed Jan. 24 in federal court in Virginia, seeks structural relief that could force Google to divest parts of its advertising-technology business. The [Justice Department](https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-google-monopolizing-digital-advertising-technologies?ref=theamericanquorum.com) says Google has used acquisitions, contractual restrictions and auction practices to suppress rivals and entrench its control over the online-advertising stack. The case is one of the most consequential U.S. antitrust actions against a technology company in years because it targets the infrastructure beneath much of the open web rather than a single consumer product. Publishers rely on ad servers and exchanges to sell inventory; advertisers and agencies use separate tools to bid for that inventory. The government’s [complaint](https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/410873?ref=theamericanquorum.com) argues that Google has gained control at multiple stages of that transaction and then used its position in one layer to reinforce its position in others. ## The government targets the ad-tech stack According to the complaint, Google occupies dominant positions in publisher ad servers, advertising exchanges and advertiser-side buying tools. Prosecutors contend that the company’s 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick and later purchase of AdMeld helped it establish a central role in the market. The government says Google then designed auction rules and product integrations that disadvantaged competing exchanges and buying platforms. New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the state plaintiffs, said the alleged conduct allowed Google to control nearly every step of open-web advertising and extract fees that harmed publishers, advertisers and consumers. Her office’s [announcement](https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2023/attorney-general-james-sues-google-monopolies-digital-advertising?ref=theamericanquorum.com) describes the case as an effort to restore competition and seeks divestitures of ad-tech tools rather than only monetary penalties. California Attorney General Rob Bonta likewise framed the lawsuit as an attack on what his office calls an unfair monopoly scheme. California’s [filing announcement](https://oag.ca.gov/node/562153?ref=theamericanquorum.com) emphasizes that the alleged conduct affects small businesses and website creators because online display advertising finances a large share of freely available internet content. ## Google says the market is intensely competitive Google disputes the government’s account. In a Jan. 24 [response](https://blog.google/company-news/outreach-and-initiatives/public-policy/doj-ad-tech-lawsuit-response/?ref=theamericanquorum.com), the company said the Justice Department is attempting to pick winners and losers in a competitive market and is revisiting acquisitions that regulators reviewed years ago. Google argues that advertisers and publishers have numerous choices and that forcing divestitures could slow innovation, raise fees and make it harder for smaller businesses to reach customers. The company also points to competition from Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and independent advertising platforms, as well as rapidly changing buying methods and privacy rules. That argument goes to the definition of the relevant market, a central issue in antitrust litigation. If the court accepts a broad market that includes many forms of online advertising, Google’s share may appear less dominant; if the court accepts the narrower ad-server and exchange markets alleged by the government, the case becomes materially stronger. ## States say publishers lose revenue and choice Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said the challenged system has hurt consumers and inhibited innovation. His office’s [statement](https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2023/1/24/pr23-02.html?ref=theamericanquorum.com) cites the complaint’s allegation that Google collects, on average, more than 30% of advertising dollars flowing through its ad-tech products. That figure is not a universal transaction fee but a government allegation about the combined take across interconnected products. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser also joined the case, saying Google’s control lets it dictate how digital ads are sold and the terms on which rivals compete. Colorado’s [release](https://coag.gov/press-releases/1-24-23/?ref=theamericanquorum.com) highlights the economic scale of open-web advertising and the government’s concern that weakened competition can translate into lower publisher revenue and higher advertiser costs. The New York and California filings similarly stress the relationship between ad-tech competition and the economics of journalism, entertainment and other free content. Publishers often depend on automated auctions to monetize impressions in fractions of a second. Small differences in auction rules, fees or access can compound across billions of transactions. ## A structural remedy would be unusually significant The Justice Department is not merely asking Google to change a policy. It is seeking divestiture of parts of Google’s ad-tech business and other relief designed to unwind alleged conflicts created by ownership of tools on both sides of the transaction. Structural remedies of that scale are difficult to win and difficult to implement, particularly in a market built around tightly integrated software and data systems. The government will have to prove both monopoly power and unlawful maintenance of that power. Google, in turn, can argue that its integrations improved efficiency, reduced transaction costs and benefited customers. The case will likely involve extensive economic evidence about auction mechanics, pricing, market definition and the competitive significance of Google’s acquisitions. For the technology industry, the immediate importance is broader than digital advertising. The suit shows that U.S. antitrust enforcement is increasingly willing to challenge platform business models built on vertical integration. The government’s theory is that control over several adjacent layers can produce durable market power even when users see only the final product. As of Saturday, the case is only an allegation. No court has found Google liable, and the company has made clear that it intends to fight. But the requested remedy — potentially breaking apart a major portion of Google’s advertising infrastructure — means the litigation could reshape the economics of the open web if the Justice Department succeeds.