Google is no stranger to making headlines. Its influence touches every corner of the internet, whether through search results, YouTube, or Google Maps. But what most consumers don’t see is their digital advertising infrastructure that powers much of the online world. Every time you make your way to a publisher’s website, like Forbes or Rolling Stone, and see a display ad tucked into the margins or in the middle of an article, you're engaging with the unseen side of Google—its ad tech business.

This is the very division under scrutiny in the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) latest antitrust trial against Google. On September 9, The DOJ argued that Google has unfairly monopolized the digital advertising market, accusing it of using its dominance to rig the ad market in its favor, forcing advertisers to pay higher prices and publishers to earn less revenue. As DOJ prosecutors put it: Google has, over the course of 15 years, engaged in a “systematic campaign to seize control of the high-tech tools” that facilitate online advertising.

Why the Fuss Over Google’s Vertical Integration?

One Google ad executive compared the company’s position to Goldman Sachs or Citibank owning the New York Stock Exchange—an example the DOJ uses to underscore just how much control Google has over both the buying and selling sides of online ads. Here’s the thing, it doesn't just provide tools to help publishers sell ad space—it also offers platforms for advertisers to place ads. In between, Google manages auction systems that act as exchanges, essentially controlling both sides of the deal.

The DOJ claims that Google used acquisitions—like its purchase of DoubleClick in 2007—to tighten its grip on the ad market and block out competition. DoubleClick, which controls over half of the ad market for open-web display transactions, is the backbone of Google’s ad business. Over time, Google has continued to strengthen its grip by acquiring Invite Media and AdMeld, giving it control over every stage of the advertising process—from selling ad space to managing transactions between advertisers and publishers.

The DOJ's claim is simple: with a 91% market share over the types of ads we see across the web, Google has too much power. In their view, Google’s vertical integration across ad tech allows it to play all sides of the field, resulting in higher costs for advertisers and reduced profits for publishers.

What’s at Stake?

The DOJ argues that Google’s dominance allows it to take a significant cut—up to 30 cents on every dollar—from transactions between publishers and advertisers. It’s hard to ignore these numbers. Google's parent company, Alphabet, pulled in $307 billion in revenue last year, and 78% of that came from Google. A substantial portion of that, about $31 billion, came directly from Google’s ad tech division.

In the DOJ’s eyes, the solution is drastic but necessary: a breakup of Google’s ad tech business or, at the very least, divestment. If successful, we could see a part of Google’s empire spun off into a separate entity. For advertisers, this could mean lower prices, more competition, and fairer terms. For publishers, it could mean a bigger slice of the revenue pie.

Google’s Defense: Not a Monopoly, Just Better?

Google is, of course, fighting back. Their argument? Google’s VP of Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, argues that advertisers and publishers have plenty of alternatives. According to her, when they choose Google, it’s because Google’s ad tech is "simple, affordable, and effective. In short—it works."

From Google’s perspective, its ad tech services aren’t monopolistic—they're simply better than the competition. The company argues the reason we choose Google is because it delivers results. True, but fair?

Breakup or Make-Up?

Breaking up sucks… but change is good for everybody. If the DOJ wins, it would likely require Google to divest key pieces: like DoubleClick or AdX. This would change the ad space, as we know it. Level the playing field for competitors like us at AdButler and create more options for both advertisers and publishers.

While Google argues that breaking up its business would lead to less innovation and a more fragmented ad space, the DOJ’s goal is clear: more competition, lower prices, and a fairer market for everyone involved. A win-win. As DOJ lawyer Julia Tarver Wood put it in her opening statement, Google has built a “trifecta of monopolies” that has allowed it to control every aspect of digital ad transactions.

What does this mean for the Digital Advertising space?

Let’s be real—this trial could redefine digital advertising. If Google’s ad tech business is forced to split up, we could see a whole new era of competition. Smaller ad tech companies could rise, advertisers might enjoy lower prices, and publishers could finally receive a fairer share of ad revenue.

A more competitive ad marketplace also means more transparency. Right now, Google controls a hefty portion of the digital advertising supply chain, giving it the power to dictate terms immensely. Breaking that up would likely lead to more open ad exchanges and fairer pricing for everyone involved.

For advertisers, publishers, and the industry at large, this trial isn’t just another courtroom drama—it’s about the future of how we advertise and interact online. Potentially making the future browsing experience for consumers better and less annoying. Whether we’re looking at a more competitive market or business as usual, one thing’s for sure: Google’s grip on digital advertising is being seriously challenged like never before.

And we’re watching to see what happens next.