As we approach opening arguments of Google’s landmark AdTech trial on September 9th, it is a good time to reflect on the calendar of events leading to this moment. It is useful to consider the context and critical points at play in the case against Google, particularly given last week’s search antitrust verdict.  

To recap, here is the timeline to date of the four major lawsuits alleging Google engaged in monopolistic behavior:  

• Dec 11, 2023 | A federal jury found that Google’s app store violated antitrust law  

• Aug 5, 2024 | Google found to have violated antitrust law in search and search text ads 

• Aug 14, 2024 | Closing arguments on remedies for Google’s app store antitrust violations 

• Sep 6th, 2024 | Judge Mehta will begin the trial on remedies to Google’s search monopoly 

• Sept 9^th, 2024 Trial begins AdTech antitrust lawsuit brought by DOJ (see more info below) 

• March 25, 2025 | Google faces Texas court in a second AdTech antitrust lawsuit brought by state attorneys general 

And here is a significant resource for those who seek a fuller picture of the upcoming Google AdTech antitrust trial: 

•  The antitrust trial of the United States v. Google, LLC  

So, as we look toward the start of the next phase in the antitrust actions against Google, here are five key considerations for media executives, journalists covering these cases, and for the general public—as this company’s anticompetitive behavior impacts almost every person online.   

1. Ending Google’s innocence narratives: The abusive monopoly is confirmed  

The first significant outcome of the search case is the formal acknowledgment of Google’s monopolistic status. It’s no longer a matter of debate whether Google is a monopoly. Given that the court has ruled definitively on this point, I have no idea why The Information is sending out polls asking its subscribers if Google is a monopoly. This is no longer a subject of debate.  

A unanimous jury of Northern Californians last December, and now a D.C. district court judge last week, have decisively found that Google monopolizes four critical markets: general search services, search text ads, Android app distribution, and Android in-app billing. More importantly, the verdicts also found that Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain these monopolies. The wider Search verdict—a fabulous read—effectively ends any narrative of Google’s innocence and sets the stage for a broader reckoning within the tech industry.  

2. Illuminating Google’s tactics: The truth shines through  

The trial last Fall exposed the extent of Google’s market power and its aggressive, if not illegal, tactics. Under oath, former Google employees (often referred to as “Xooglers”), partners, and even current employees provided testimony that has shed light on the company’s practices.  

Discovery in these cases has revealed much about Google’s internal operations, with documents and testimony uncovering the strategies Google used to maintain its dominance to maximize its benefits. These revelations are crucial not only for the legal proceedings but also for broader public understanding of how big tech companies operate behind closed doors.  

3. A matter of public interest: The stakes for media and society  

The implications of these cases extend far beyond Google’s corporate interests. Google is not just a search company. It is not just a tech giant. Google is the single largest distributor of news and entertainment—as well as the advertising dollars that sustain these industries. With annual revenues nearing $300 billion, the company’s influence over the media landscape is immense.  

Taken together—Google AdTech case, along with the Search verdict—arguably mark the most significant antitrust action affecting the media industry in a half-century. The outcome will have profound implications for how information and advertising are distributed in the digital age. Yet, despite the critical nature of this case, there has been a surprising lack of press coverage and public awareness about the evidence presented.  

Let me try to illustrate not only why the AdTech trial matters, but why it is a story the public needs to hear: 

• What if I told you the heads of Chrome, Android, and AdTech divisions collaborated via email to maximize ad revenues to hit their quarterly targets?  

• What if I told you Google’s advertising auctions weren’t always second-price auctions, but that publishers were at times secretly paid the third price while Google pocketed the difference?   

• And what if the auction bids included another arbitrary, secretive variable determined unilaterally by Google?  

• What if I told you Google exerted its outsized influence on the very shape of the media ecosystem based on the position that subscription news sites were a threat to the open web?  

• What if I told you Google’s notorious “Jedi Blue” deal with Facebook is still a part of the evidence in this case and that the key Meta employee who briefed Mark Zuckerberg ahead of his meeting with Sundar Pichai will be testifying this September? 

These cases impact almost every searcher’s ability to access news, entertainment and information. If those stakes aren’t high enough, the cast of players and the Machiavellian twists make for compelling storytelling. The public needs to know.  

4. Converging lawsuits: A unified attack on anticompetitive practices  

The lawsuits against Google, though focusing on different aspects of the company’s operations— app store, search and AdTech—share common themes. Judges have noted that Google allowed employee messages to be purged by default, despite ongoing litigation holds, and manipulated auctions to impact revenues. These findings indicate a pattern of behavior that transcends individual cases. It points to a systematic approach to maintaining its monopoly power.  

The convergence of these lawsuits highlights the interconnected nature of Google’s business practices and the data and queries at scale serving as the core of its business model. It’s becoming increasingly clear that any meaningful remedy must address the chokepoints of Google’s operations that feed the data and query scale. Doing so should also open opportunities for new entrants in the emerging field of generative AI. 

5. Remedies on the horizon: structural changes loom large  

The future of the media industry will be on display in federal court rooms on both sides of the Potomac next month. As the separate remedies trial for the search case gets underway in the DC district court and the AdTech trial starts in the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), discussions about potential remedies have begun to surface.  

While short-term solutions, such as prohibiting Google’s commercial deals to serve as the default search engine on browsers and operating systems, are being considered, it’s evident that more substantial structural remedies will be necessary. The prosecuting teams, under the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, seem to understand the intricacies of Google’s business model just as well as industry insiders. Without structural changes—such as breaking up Google’s control over key gatekeeping assets like Chrome, Android, YouTube, and its AdTech supply chain and data. it will be impossible to mitigate Google’s monopolistic practices in the long term.   

The idea of “Baby Googles,” or the division of Google into smaller, independent entities, is not just a hypothetical scenario; it’s a very real possibility that could reshape the tech and media industry.  

The future of Big Tech and the free market  

The second verdict against Google marks a turning point in the battle against monopolistic practices in the tech industry. The outcomes of these legal battles will not only impact Google but will also set precedents for how other tech giants like Apple, Amazon, and Meta—all currently being sued by either the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission or both—are regulated in the future.  

But it is important to remember that this isn’t just about setting the tone for Big Tech regulation. It is about the underlying motivation behind these cases; the very reason America has antitrust laws in place and a framework to enforce them. As DOJ antitrust chief Kanter framed it in an interview on CNBC, actions like these are particularly critical during times of technological change. As AI is poised to reshape search—and impact industries of all kinds—ensuring that the marketplace is a healthy one, where competition and innovation flourish, takes on paramount importance.  

“As we sit here at the next technological inflection point,” Kanter said, “it’s extremely important that we protect the competitive process to make sure that the benefits of technological innovation, the excitement that we’re all feeling from AI… can reach consumers in a fully competitive way.” 

It looks like the era of unchecked dominance by a few tech behemoths may be coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for the entire digital economy.