Connect with us

News

Google ‘wilfully’ monopolised online advertising market, US judge rules

Published

on

Google ‘wilfully’ monopolised online advertising market, US judge rules

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A US federal judge has ruled Google illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in digital advertising, the latest antitrust defeat for the technology giant that could result in it being forced to divest parts of its business.

Leonie Brinkema, the district judge presiding over the case in Virginia, on Thursday said Google had “wilfully” monopolised two parts of the digital advertising market: the technology online publishers use to sell ad space, and the biggest exchange on which businesses bid for ads.

However, Brinkema found the US Department of Justice, which brought the case, was not able to prove Google unfairly dominated the third component of the market, advertiser ad networks.

Advertisement

The ruling comes after a federal judge in a separate antitrust case last year found the company spent billions of dollars on exclusive deals to maintain an illegal monopoly on search.

The second phase of that trial, in which the court will determine remedies that could include forcing Google to sell parts of its business, begins next week.

The DoJ asked in the search case for Google to sell its Chrome browser, cease $20bn in payments to Apple each year to be its default search engine, and share more data with rivals.

Brinkema on Thursday wrote: “For over a decade, Google has tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange together through contractual policies and technological integration, which enabled the company to establish and protect its monopoly power in these two markets.”

“Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anti-competitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features,” she added.

Advertisement

But she rejected the way the DoJ had tried to define the third part of the market, saying the term “advertiser ad network” was uncommon in the industry and “unduly exclude[s]” publishers.

Google said: “We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half . . . We disagree with the court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”

The ruling is the latest win for the former antitrust officials appointed by ex-president Joe Biden who brought and litigated the case before Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Jonathan Kanter, the former head of the DoJ’s antitrust unit, said in a post on X on Thursday: “Today is a huge victory for antitrust enforcement, the media industry, and the free and open internet . . . Google is now an illegal monopolist twice over.”

Antitrust officials appointed by Trump have strongly signalled they intend to adopt a tough stance on enforcement, especially against Big Tech. The US Federal Trade Commission this week began making its case against Meta in a monopoly trial in Washington federal court.

Advertisement

“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolising the digital public square,” US attorney-general Pam Bondi said in a statement. “This Department of Justice will continue taking bold legal action to protect the American people from encroachments on free speech and free markets by tech companies.”

The EU’s competition chief Teresa Ribera said earlier on Thursday: “We take note of the decision and we will study it with interest. The case being analysed by the European Commission continues.”

The commission is also investigating Google for favouring its own advertising services.

Additional reporting by Barbara Moens in Brussels

Advertisement

News

Lawmakers threaten Attorney General Bondi with contempt over incomplete Epstein files

Published

on

Lawmakers threaten Attorney General Bondi with contempt over incomplete Epstein files

Attorney General Pam Bondi, accompanied by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (L) and FBI Director Kash Patel (R), speaks during a news conference at the Justice Department on Nov. 19. Some lawmakers said the department’s release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein had too many redactions as well as missing information.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Two lawmakers are threatening a seldom-used congressional sanction against the Department of Justice over what they say is a failure to release all of its files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by a deadline set in law.

Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie spearheaded the effort to force the Epstein files’ release by co-sponsoring the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but both have said the release had too many redactions as well as missing information.

“I think the most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi,” Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, told CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday. “Basically Ro Khanna and I are talking about and drafting that right now.”

Advertisement

Inherent contempt refers to Congress’ authority to fine or arrest and then bring to trial officers who are obstructing legislative functions. It was last successfully used in the 1930s, according to the American Bar Association.

Khanna, a California Democrat, noted that the House would not need the Senate’s approval to take such action, which he said would result in a fine for Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“I believe we’re going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable,” he told Face the Nation.

Justice Department defends partial release

The Justice Department on Sunday defended its initial, partial release of documents, some of which were heavily redacted.

“The material that we released on Friday, or the material that we’re going to release over the next a couple of weeks, is exactly what the statute requires us to release,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on NBC’s Meet the Press, referring to the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Advertisement

Blanche said the administration has hundreds of lawyers going through the remaining documents to ensure that victims’ information is protected. Still, lawmakers from both parties remain unsatisfied.

“Any evidence or any kind of indication that there’s not a full reveal on this, this will just plague them for months and months more,” said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on ABC’s This Week. “My suggestion would be — give up all the information, release it.”

Blanche told NBC he was not taking the threats of contempt seriously.

“Not even a little bit. Bring it on,” he said, adding that lawmakers who have spoken negatively about Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel “have no idea what they’re talking about.”

Back and forth over Trump photo

The trove of documents released Friday contained little new information about Epstein, prompting accusations that the department wasn’t complying with the law. There was a photograph included in Friday’s release that showed a desk full of photos, including at least one of President Trump. It was among more than a dozen photographs no longer available in the Justice Department’s “Epstein Library” by Saturday, NPR found.

Advertisement

On Sunday, the Justice Department re-uploaded the photo of the desk, and provided an explanation on X.

“The Southern District of New York flagged an image of President Trump for potential further action to protect victims,” the post read. “Out of an abundance of caution, the Department of Justice temporarily removed the image for further review. After the review, it was determined there is no evidence that any Epstein victims are depicted in the photograph, and it has been reposted without any alteration or redaction.”

The Justice Department did not offer an explanation for the other photos whose access had been removed.

Blanche told NBC the Justice Department was not redacting information around Trump or any other individual involved with Epstein. He said the Justice Department had removed photos from the public files “because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group, if they have any concerns about the material that we’re putting up.

“And so when we hear concerns, whether it’s photographs of women that we do not believe are victims, or we didn’t have information to show that they were victims, but we learned that there are concerns, of course, we’re taking that photograph down and we’re going to address it,” he said.

Advertisement

Earlier Sunday, the Justice Department also posted to X a new version of the 119-page transcript of grand jury proceedings in the case of Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The original version had been entirely redacted.

“Here is the document now with minimal redactions. Documents and photos will continue to be reviewed consistent with the law and with an abundance of caution for victims and their families,” the Justice Department wrote in its post.

Continue Reading

News

Russia says talks on US peace plan for Ukraine ‘are proceeding constructively’

Published

on

Russia says talks on US peace plan for Ukraine ‘are proceeding constructively’

FILE – Russian Presidential foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov, left, U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, center, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, foreground right, and Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev, behind Witkoff, arrive to attend talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Senate Palace of the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 2, 2025. (Alexander Kazakov, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP, File)

The Associated Press

Continue Reading

News

Video: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

Published

on

Video: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

new video loaded: First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

transcript

transcript

First Batch of Epstein Files Provides Few Revelations

The Justice Department, under pressure from Congress to comply with a law signed by President Trump, released more than 13,000 files on Friday arising from investigations into Jeffrey Epstein.

Put out the files and stop redacting names that don’t need to be redacted. It’s just — who are we trying to protect? Are we protecting the survivors? Or are we protecting these elite men that need to be put out there?

Advertisement
The Justice Department, under pressure from Congress to comply with a law signed by President Trump, released more than 13,000 files on Friday arising from investigations into Jeffrey Epstein.

By McKinnon de Kuyper

December 20, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending