US Court's Ruling Against Google: A Judgement Of Consequence For Media And Marketing

The judgement by a Federal court in the US against Google for a case the DoJ pursued may open up the field for media.

It will impact media in positive ways because this -hitherto vast and successful- industry, based on deeply ingrained consumer behavior, deep business relationships, and an entrenched social habit was transformed and disrupted by digital platform concentration.

It may change now.

Cloud capital as a sum of data, algorithms and a community of users is not easily replicable and becomes more powerful with amplified network effects. That may now become open for many more.

The litigation entered into by the Department of Justice in the United States concerning Google’s business practices, shines a spotlight on the “Big Tech” variation of capitalism, that has led to a fundamental shift in how wealth and power are structured.

At the heart of this is the rise of digital platforms—massive tech monopolies that no longer operate within competitive markets but rather own and govern them.

Beyond basic functionality, and algorithmic feed driven by a lot of data mapping, there wasn’t more the social platforms and search gateway could offer mass audiences that will sustain interest on an ever-returning basis, and that create an environment and relationship that advertisers will profitably pay for. Hence - it is the case of the prosecution- that preventive, preferential arrangements were made to limit competition and block disruptive innovations.  

Also Read: US Court Deals Blow to Google in Antitrust Case Over Digital Ads | Republic World

The failure to achieve something unique, with accretive brand value, was perhaps the dominant effect of technologists building without narrative and emotional acumen.

Leonie Brinkema, the US Federal judge presiding over the case in Virginia has now ruled that Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising. This is an antitrust judgement. It could result in Google being forced to divest parts of its business.

The judgement- which will surely go into appeal- rules that Google willfully monopolized the digital advertising market both in terms of the technology used by online publishers to sell ad space, as well as the exchange on which ads are bid for by businesses.

As a search window to the web world, it offers entertainment, information, and functionality choices. Ironically, as the largest aggregating site it came to resemble newspapers.

In 2023, for the first time, global
Advertising revenues crossed the USD 1 trillion mark. Of this, $700 billion was pure play digital. It shows us who is winning. Brand advertising was loath to increase support for both print and digital media; therefore, one lived and grew at the other’s expense.

Digital media is overwhelmingly ad supported, whereas a substantial chunk of television’s income comes from other sources such as subscription. So, over the past years' television advertising has remained largely stable in India although cord cutting became rampant in the developed world. However, in adapting to video, digital also became just another screen.

Digital media, from a practically zero base, gathered, in addition to a virtually immeasurable audience, vast amounts of direct-response advertising and this “blue links” economy was created and overwhelmingly dominated by Google.

Digital media has truly replaced newspapers’ disposable, largely low-level content and advertising, and television has remained boringly same but increasingly dependent on sports.

The US Department of Justice failed to prove that Google unfairly dominated the advertiser ad networks.

The argument is that Google’s dominance in the search engine market—holding over 90% market share—is maintained not solely through superior products but through strategic agreements that suppress competition. It is a matter of business practice that Google pays substantial sums to companies like Apple to ensure its search engine remains the default on their devices.

It is argued that such arrangements harm the competitive process, leading to reduced innovation and potentially compromising user privacy. The position on antitrust enforcement has been not only focus on consumer prices but also consider the broader implications of market dominance on democracy and economic equality.

To address these concerns, structural remedies such as breaking up parts of Google’s business, including separating its search engine from other services like Chrome and Android, have been demanded to restore competitive balance in the tech industry.  

Google’s near monopoly in search is now extending into AI development. Since search engines generate massive datasets and revenue, Google uses this power to fund and train large-scale AI models , reinforcing its dominance. The argument is that if one company controls both the gateway to information and the AI tools that interpret it, it becomes a bottleneck for innovation, competition, and democratic access to knowledge.

AI built by monopolies could lead to a triple weight of data concentration, algorithmic curation and limited accountability.

However, to be fair,tech giants like Meta, Amazon , Google cannot be compared with early 20th-century monopolies like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel when Louis Brandeis, a key figure in early antitrust thinking, warned that ‘big’ in itself was a danger. After all, in the digital domain, ‘scale’ is a natural quality, even a prerequisite.

The large body of work by the most storied Chicago School economists like Robert Bork, has argued that where monopolist excess is concerned, only consumer prices matter. The central principle is that antitrust laws should focus solely on consumer welfare, primarily measured by prices and output. If a company’s practices lead to lower prices or greater efficiency, even if they reduce competition, they are considered acceptable.

Given the accelerated timelines, it is difficult to judge if this is monopolization by intent or mere optics.

We must appreciate that cloud capital: the digital infrastructure made up of algorithms, AI, proprietary data, and platform ecosystems is non-replicable and becomes more powerful with use and scale. The more people engage with it, the more entrenched it becomes. They monetize user behavior, attention, and data.

Amazon is the world’s store and decides who gets visibility on its marketplace. Google is the world’s encyclopedia and determines what information rises to the top; and Facebook is the world’s social club and curates the news and social interactions of billions.

This gatekeeping power allows them to shape not only commerce but also culture and public discourse. Hence what applies to Google could apply pretty much across the board.

Nevertheless, even in anticipation of outcomes, this case will change the world in many ways for marketers in digital advertising, search engine optimization (SEO), and data access.

In the new landscape, brands could get more visibility, better pricing, and fairer competition.

Google collects and uses vast amounts of user data across platforms - Chrome, Search, Android, Gmail, etc. 

The ruling could limit Google’s ability to combine cross-platform data, especially without explicit user consent. Therefore, targeting might become less precise and a return to First-party data may get more important. Marketers need to shift focus to consent-based data strategies and contextual advertising.

Google decides which links appear in search results and often features its own services above competitors.

If regulators force Google to stop prioritizing its own products, organic search may become more competitive with greater ROI from SEO investment, not just ads.

The ask is to adapt strategies quickly, diversify ad spend, and become more creative with data, targeting, and content.

The popularly accepted argument driving digital preference among advertisers is that Millennials are different, a first generation to be raised with digital tools and digital media.

It has now become common case for all.

(Shubhranshu Singh is one of India’s leading marketers with an exceptional track record of leadership across industries. A prolific writer and celebrated speaker, Shubhranshu’s area of focus is brand building , technology and the consumer world with a special emphasis on value creation. Views expressed are personal)