Google Ruled a Monopoly. Here’s What That Means for the Future of Search Advertising

In the case of the United States vs. Google, Judge Amit Mehta has found the tech giant guilty of breaking antitrust law to maintain an illegal monopoly in online search.

On August 5, Judge Mehta issued a thorough 286-page ruling stating Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by paying Apple tens of billions of dollars for search exclusivity. Or as Mehta himself simply stated in his ruling, “Google is a monopolist.” No ambiguity there.

This landmark decision is a massive win for the US Department of Justice and marks the first time in the modern internet era where an antitrust law signed back in 1890 will define the boundaries between democracy and capitalism when it comes to Big Tech. 

"We've watched Google make increasingly bold moves with how they treat their publishers and advertisers," Adam Epstein, Co-CEO and President of adMarketplace remarked on AdExchanger's The Big Story podcast following Mehta's decision. "It's not been easy to get around their power — it was very validating to be able to see, in writing for the first time, everything that we have been feeling."

We are now entering the dawn of a new competitive search market that we haven’t seen in decades due to Google’s monopolistic practices. Here’s what this massive sea change could mean for advertisers, publishers, and the search advertising landscape as a whole.

‍Search Exclusivity Out, Search Innovation In

The Court’s decision sets the state for a remedy that will dramatically improve the search experience for everyone connected to the web. With an exciting new era of innovation in search now within grasp, we expect three key outcomes to redefine the next wave of search advertising. These include:

1. Innovation that paves the way for next-gen user search experiences
2. Much needed transparency for advertisers
3. Greater publisher control over their owned properties

In fact, we’ll go so far as to say that by the end of this decade, the infusion of innovation into search will prove so profound that going to a search engine results page will seem all but quaint.

That is, of course, pending the actual remedy phase of litigation which is expected to begin in September. “The ruling opens the door to various remedies that would allow advertisers to be more efficient with their search spend that begins outside of Google’s search engine,” adMarketplace Co-CEO and President, Adam J. Epstein, told Adweek following the ruling.

Potential Remedies: What to Expect

Judge Mehta will have wide latitude to fashion a remedy that brings innovation and transparency into a competitive search market. 

At this point, where Judge Mehta’s proverbial gavel might fall against Google is still a bit of a guessing game. “A remedy that is getting a lot of interest and support would actually force Google to make their search results and search ads available to where the searches are actually happening on the Apple browser, or in the Safari operating system,” Epstein told AdAge. 

“[This would enable] third-party search properties to become the curators of the search experience, which, of course, they have not been able to do for the last 15 years. If they move a single pixel, Google was threatening to pull their search deal.”

Still, anyone who tells you they know exactly how this will play out in the long-run is fooling themselves. As DuckDuckGo’s SVP of Public Affairs put it, “there is no silver bullet here.” However, we envision the remedy phase will most likely go one of three ways, mirroring that classic Goldilocks scenario — a remedy that’s too hot, a remedy that’s too cold, and a remedy that’s ~just~ right.

Let’s start with the cold. This would look something like a “ballot screen” where users select a search engine of their choice when they fire up a browser. A remedy of this nature is unlikely to create any meaningful competition and would place an annoying burden on users — a fire cry from the innovation and market competition a landmark ruling such as this is designed to usher in.

The sweet spot in the middle would be an injunctive remedy where the Court ends Google’s exclusive contracts which currently force all searches to be funneled to the Google results page. For the first time, this would force Google to compete by offering its search results and ads products to publishers so they can curate their own search experiences, unleashing innovation for users and transparency for advertisers.

Getting Google to comply with this sort of injunctive remedy will be the trick. If they fail to do so, that’s when we could see a scorching hot structural remedy being served up. That means the Court could spin out part of Google, like the Chrome browser or the Android operating system. This would inflict maximum pain on Google but could also cause equal pain to users and publishers, making it difficult to create competition in search results and advertising.

Where Does Search Advertising Go Next?

While we await the remedy and appeal phases, one thing is all but certain: Google’s stranglehold over the search advertising landscape has effectively come to an end. The search antitrust trial ruling is going to have a transformative impact on the $150 billion search market. 

As always, adMarketplace will stand as a harbinger for innovation and transparency for search advertising on the open web, helping the world’s largest advertisers weather this sea change by diversifying their media beyond the confines of the legacy SERP. Watch this space.