San Francisco (Reuters) -The U.S. judge's ruling that Google has illegal monopolies in advertisement technology establishes the possibility of US prosecutors trying to break down. This is what the case means and what Google owner faces from here.
What is the purpose of this?
The most important thing is what this is for: this is not about the search, bread and butter of Google, although there is a separate anti -collym for searching. The Case of the Justice Department's Ad Technology revolves around Google Network, a division of the business that manages its system in the form of advertisers that advertisers use to buy digital advertising space. The ad chooses which ad to place where there is what cost.
Federal prosecutors said Google's power over the ad technology allows it to take care of illegal competition, which hurts web publishers, as news outlets. The judge agreed. Google's argument was that it competed against competitors with superior technology.
Advertising accounted for approximately 75% of $ 350.02 billion perprise in revenue for 2024. Google's network was only 8.7% of revenue.
What happens next?
The judge who ruled there in illegal monopolies will now hear arguments about what to do. The Justice Department had been trying, at least, to divert Google ad manager, a platform in the Network Division. The manager represented 4.1% of general revenue and 1.5% of the operational profits in 2020, according to Wedbush research and analysis of court documents.
More recent figures were edited from court documents.
How big is this for Google?
Erik Hovenkamp, a teacher at Cornell Law School, earlier in the case had predicted that if he lost, Google would probably have to divert some, not all, from his display advertising business, and the net impact would be a reduction in revenue of less than 10%.
Google has even been exposed to some ad technology divert. Reuters first reported on September 18 that Google itself had offered to sell its advertising exchange, part of the Google Advertisement Manager, to apprehend European anti -college regulators. Publishers rejected the proposal, sources said.
Could this have stronger effects?
Perhaps the most serious implication of the ruling is how the company controls the effects of the ripples of medicines ordered by the court across other parts of its ad technology series, Nikolas Guggenberger, a law teacher at the University of Houston, has said. In theory, the DOJ victory would make it easier for advertisers and publishers to change ad technology platforms.
There is also the political precedent set in terms of political will: Biden and Trump administrations have both supported this case so far, showing an almost unique level of cooperation on both sides of the political aisle in the prosecution of Big Tech.