The US federal court ruling, which found Google guilty of "wilfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power" in the ad tech sector, could signal a significant shift in the relationship between large technology companies and democratic institutions.
Although this regards a specific segment of the digital market – servers for advertisers and platforms that connect ad buyers and sellers – the consequences of this case could be felt worldwide.
The decision by Judge Leonie Brinkema from Virginia comes at a time when many states are trying to find a legal basis to curb the power of digital giants.
Google, as part of Alphabet, is no longer just a search engine. It has become an infrastructure — invisible, but crucial to the daily functioning of the internet. And this position is now under legal scrutiny.
The court found that Google used tactics that are characteristic of building a monopoly.
Google used tactics such as buying competitors, blocking access to the market for others, and favouring its own tools. In this way, Google not only controls advertising but also the revenues of many independent media outlets and the content that users see.
Google defends itself by arguing that users choose its tools because they are simple and efficient. However, when an entire industry is dependent on one company, it is no longer a market dynamic but a dependency.
Independent editorial offices, local media, and advertisers suffer most from this dependency because they have no insight into the distribution of money in this system.
Google's ad dominance
The ruling is incomplete, as no allegations regarding the advertising network have been confirmed, but what has been confirmed is enough to pave the way for a new phase: the decision on measures that could involve breaking Google's ad dominance.
If the court decides to divide certain segments of Google's business, such as the sale of Google Ad Manager or the Ad Exchange, it would be the first serious attempt to break the monopoly of the digital age.
A scenario in which Google is forced to make fundamental changes is no longer impossible
Considering that another lawsuit over the internet search monopoly is underway at the same time, a scenario in which Google is forced to make fundamental changes is no longer impossible.
Such a move would be reminiscent of the break-up of the AT&T Corporation in 1982, which set a precedent in American antimonopoly practice.
The breaking of the AT&T monopoly that year was the result of an antimonopoly lawsuit by the US Department of Justice, which found that the company was illegally controlling the telecommunications market.
As a result, AT&T agreed to split into seven regional companies, known as "Baby Bells." This ended decades of dominance over American telephone lines and opened up the market to competition.
The global context
This time, however, it is not about telephone lines; it is about codes, algorithms, and the digital economy.
The ruling cannot be viewed in isolation from the global context. The EU is already introducing a strict Digital Markets Act, while China is building its own closed digital system. The US judiciary is showing that it can regulate its own technology companies.
It is important to see the contrast: while the US executive branch wages trade wars with allies, the judiciary demonstrates institutional independence and the ability to correct internally. This message goes beyond Google; it also applies to Amazon, Apple, Meta and other tech giants.
For years, Google has used its position to bring advertisers and content owners together while maintaining control over crucial data. This dual status, both arbiter and player, harms competition in the market and undermines user trust.
Imagine a market in which a bank owns the stock exchange as well as the brokerage house and the trading app
Imagine a market in which a bank owns the stock exchange as well as the brokerage house and the trading app - such a concentration of power would be unacceptable. And that is precisely what Google is doing in digital advertising.
The ruling confirms that technology companies are not beyond the reach of the law. Their power is enormous, but legal systems can and must respond if they have the political will and institutional capacity.
We can expect similar cases against other significant players in the future, particularly if the court orders specific corrective measures now.
A new phase in the regulation of the digital economy
Over the years, Google has put digital content creators, journalists, analysts, scientists and artists in positions of dependence.
They are forced to rely on algorithms that determine their visibility, on revenues dictated by non-transparent advertising policies, and on a system in which they have no real control over their own work and audience.
If this ruling is consistently enforced, it could pave the way for a more equitable digital environment where authors will have greater control over their work, revenue, and relationship with readers.
The US court's decision may serve as a precedent on which European regulators will rely, particularly in the application of the Digital Markets Act
For Europe, the US ruling is a strong incentive to further strengthen its own digital regulation. The European Commission has already announced investigations into Google, including preliminary findings that the company is engaging in similar anti-competitive practices in the EU.
The US court's decision may serve as a precedent on which European regulators will rely, particularly in the application of the DMA (Digital Markets Act).
There is also room for coordinated transatlantic action to create global rules for the digital market—rules that protect competition, privacy, and consumer rights regardless of national borders.
The US ruling is a clear signal that it is time for the big tech companies to face the consequences of their own business practices.
The ruling against Google could mark the beginning of a new phase in the regulation of the digital economy. If this is actually implemented, the internet as we know it today will become more decentralised, more accessible and more open to new market participants.
While the changes will not happen overnight, the long-term effect could be a fundamental shift in who controls the digital space and in whose interests.
In the age where information is the crucial currency, these rulings are not just a question of market relations. They become a part of a broader struggle for democratic order in the digital age.
