SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Google has been branded an abusive monopolist by a federal judge for the second time in less than a year, this time for illegally exploiting some of its online marketing technology to boost the profits fueling an internet empire currently worth $1.8 trillion.
The ruling issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia comes on the heels of a separate decision in August that concluded Google’s namesake search engine has been illegally leveraging its dominance to stifle competition and innovation.
After the U.S. Justice Department targeted Google’s ubiquitous search engine during President Donald Trump’s first term, the same agency went after the company’s lucrative digital advertising network in 2023 during President Joe Biden’s ensuing administration in an attempt to undercut the power that Google has amassed since its inception in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998.
Although antitrust regulators prevailed both times, the battle is likely to continue for several more years as Google tries to overturn the two monopoly decisions in appeals while forging ahead in the new and highly lucrative technological frontier of artificial intelligence.
The next step in the latest case is a penalty phase that will likely begin late this year or early next year. The same so-called remedy hearings in the search monopoly case are scheduled to begin Monday in Washington D.C., where Justice Department lawyers will try to convince U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta to impose a sweeping punishment that includes a proposed requirement for Google to sell its Chrome web browser.
Brinkema’s 115-page decision centers on the marketing machine that Google has spent the past 17 years building around its search engine and other widely used products and services, including its Chrome browser, YouTube video site and digital maps.
The system was largely built around a series of acquisitions that started with Google’s $3.2 billion purchase of online ad specialist DoubleClick in 2008. U.S. regulators approved the deals at the time they were made before realizing that they had given the Mountain View, California, company a platform to manipulate the prices in an ecosystem that a wide range of websites depend on for revenue and provides a vital marketing connection to consumers.
The Justice Department lawyers argued that Google built and maintained dominant market positions in a technology trifecta used by website publishers to sell ad space on their webpages, as well as the technology that advertisers use to get their ads in front of consumers, and the ad exchanges that conduct automated auctions in fractions of a second to match buyer and seller.
After evaluating the evidence presented during a lengthy trial that concluded just before Thanksgiving last year, Brinkema reached a decision that rejected the Justice Department's assertions that Google has been mistreating advertisers while concluding the company has been abusing its power to stifle competition to the detriment of online publishers forced to rely on its network for revenue.
“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.” Brinkema wrote. “Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anticompetitive policies on its customers and eliminating desirable product features.”
Despite that rebuke, Brinkema also concluded that Google didn't break the law when it snapped up Doubleclick nor when it followed up that deal a few years later by buying another service, Admeld.
The Justice Department “failed to show that the DoubleClick and Admeld acquisitions were anticompetitive,” Brinkema wrote. “Although these acquisitions helped Google gain monopoly power in two adjacent ad tech markets, they are insufficient, when viewed in isolation, to prove that Google acquired or maintained this monopoly power through exclusionary practices.”
That finding may help Google fight off any attempt to force it to sell its advertising technology to stop its monopolistic behavior.
“This is a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement.
In a statement, Google said it will appeal the ruling.
“We disagree with the Court’s decision regarding our publisher tools,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.”
Analysts such as Brian Pitz of BMO Markets had been predicting that Google would likely lose the case, helping to brace investors for the latest setback to the company and its corporate parent, Alphabet Inc., whose shares declined by about 1% Thursday to close at $151.22. Alphabet's stock has plunged by 20% so far this year.
On top of the setbacks in search and advertising, Google also is fighting a federal jury's 2023 verdict that determined its Play Store for apps on smartphones powered by its Android software is also an illegal monopoly.
As it did in the search monopoly case, Google vehemently denied the Justice Department’s allegations. Its lawyers argued the government largely based its case on an antiquated concept of a market that existed a decade ago while underestimating a highly competitive market for advertising spending that includes the likes of Facebook parent Meta Platforms, Amazon, Microsoft and Comcast.
The market as drawn in the Justice Department’s case didn’t include ads that appear on mobile apps, streaming television services, or other platforms to which internet users have increasingly migrated, prompting Google lawyer Karen Dunn to compare the government’s definition a “time capsule with a BlackBerry, an iPod and a Blockbuster video card” during her opening statement when the trial began last September.
At trial, the Justice Department’s lawyers emphasized the harm to news publishers that has arisen from Google’s alleged dominance of the marketplace. Witnesses from Gannett, the publisher of USA Today and other newspapers, and News Corp., the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, testified about the difficulties they have faced and what they said was a lack of alternatives to Google’s ad tech. Those companies rely on online advertising to fund their news operations and make their articles free to consumers on the internet, government lawyers have argued.
Now the government is in position to try to dismantle that byzantine ad system. When the case was filed more than two years ago during the Biden administration, the Justice Department asserted Google should be forced to sell, at a minimum, its Ad Manager product, which includes the technology used by website publishers and the ad exchange.
FILE - A man walks past Google's offices in London's Kings Cross area, on Aug. 10, 2024. (AP Photo/Brian Melley, File)
The defense in Karen Read's second murder case repeatedly sparred Friday with a key witness who was with Read the morning she found her Boston police officer boyfriend dead in the snow, hoping to undermine her testimony.
Defense attorney Alan Jackson tried to suggest that past inconsistencies showed Jennifer McCabe’s testimony couldn’t be trusted. He also suggested that she and several other witnesses coordinated their version of events around the death of John O'Keefe.
Prosecutors say Read, 45, backed her SUV into O’Keefe after dropping him off at a party hosted by a fellow officer in January 2022 and left him to die in the snow. Defense attorneys say she was a victim of a conspiracy involving the police and have suggested he was killed by someone inside the home.
A mistrial was declared last year after jurors said they were at an impasse. Read's second trial on charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter and leaving the scene, began April 22 and has thus far looked similar to the first.
On Friday, Jackson tried to convince the jury that McCabe's testimony has shifted over time or she left out key details about the events before and after O'Keefe's death.
McCabe, he said, never mentioned that she called her sister just before O'Keefe was found in the snow — something she denied. The two also sparred over what she told former State Trooper Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case, about a broken taillight on Read's vehicle. Jackson said she told Proctor that it was cracked, while McCabe testified that she "believed I said it was broken and cracked and it was missing pieces.”
After Jackson challenged McCabe about the route she took to the house, McCabe sounded exasperated.
“I was in shock,” she told the court. “So a lot of things from that day are foggy. Certain things, certain details I may have forgotten.”
Jackson responded that “all of your testimony over the last several days is based on that memory that you just described to these jurors, correct?
McCabe then shot back that “there are certain things I’ll never forget.”
Jackson accused McCabe and other witnesses of coordinating their versions of events in the hours and days after O'Keefe died. He brought up a group chat that included McCabe and several others in which they talked about the case and acknowledged listening to a police interview of another witness, Kerry Roberts, who was also with Read and McCabe that morning.
“In the text that we just saw, you were colluding with other witnesses, percipient witnesses in this case through those text messages, were you not?” Jackson asked, prompting McCabe to deny it.
He pressed further, suggesting she listened to Roberts' interview to help shape her own version of events, which McCabe again denied.
The two also sparred over a Google search — “hos (sic) long to die in cold” — by McCabe related to concerns that O"Keefe was suffering from hyperthermia. She pushed back on a suggestion it was done much earlier in the morning of O'Keefe's death. She also insisted it was done at Read's request soon after they arrived on the scene, despite no other witnesses recounting that.
“I stand by that 110%,” she said, when Jackson challenged her account.
Jackson also questioned McCabe's actions once she arrived on the scene, arguing that she should have done more to help O'Keefe. He suggested that she knew the homeowner, Brian Albert, a friend who had been a Boston police officer, could have provided blankets and was trained to provide life-saving treatment.
“You could have walked 25 feet to the front door, walked in the house and screamed for Brian Albert to help you in those precious minutes,” Jackson asked.
McCabe said her focus was exclusively on O'Keefe at the time.
“That would have taken me away from helping John, getting Kerry blankets, giving him compressions,” she said.
During her second day of testimony Wednesday, McCabe recalled a chaotic scene when they reached the house where O'Keefe, 46, was later found lying in the snow. She called 911 to report a body while Read and another friend Roberts tried to warm O'Keefe up and perform CPR.
Read, she said, was running around and screaming so much that police suggested she sit in a police cruiser. The three sat together praying, and McCabe remember Read wondering aloud who would take care of O'Keefe's two adopted children. As O'Keefe's body was moved to an ambulance, Read screamed for Roberts to go check on him and wondered if he was dead.
Then, McCabe testified that she was standing next to a police officer and a paramedic as Read told them “I hit him” three times — corroborating earlier testimony from paramedics.
But Jackson challenged McCabe, questioning why those comments couldn't be found in earlier police reports or in the 227 pages of her grand jury testimony. Instead, Jackson said she told the grand jury that she recalled Read saying to a paramedic, “Did I hit him? Could I have hit him? Is he dead? Is he dead? Is he dead?”
“In point of fact, in your entire grand jury testimony, you never said my client said the words I hit him.” he said.
McCabe insisted she had told police what Read said — even if it wasn't in the reports — and that it wasn't in the grand jury testimony because she wasn't asked specifically about it. As for the comments in her grand jury testimony, she said there were many conversations with paramedics and police at the scene.
“'I hit him. I hit him. I hit him,' is just as fresh today as it was three years ago,” she said.
Judge Beverly Cannone, presiding in Norfolk Superior Court for the Karen Read trial in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Paul O'Keefe, brother of the decedent John O'Keefe, sits with his family during Karen Read's trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Karen Read talks with her attorneys during her trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Karen Read listens during her trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Peggy O'Keefe, mother of John O'Keefe, looks on during Karen Read's trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Prosecutor Hank Brennan stands in conference before Karen Read's trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Defense attorney Robert Aleesi listens to the witness testimony of Jen McCabe during Karen Read's trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
William and Janet Read, parents of Karen Read attend her trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Witness Jen McCabe takes the stand at Norfolk Superior Court during the Karen Read trial in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Alan Jackson, defense attorney for Karen Read, questions witness Jen McCabe during Read's trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Karen Read confers with attorney David Yannetti during her trial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Friday, May 2, 2025. (Mark Jarret Chavous/The Enterprise via AP, Pool)
Defense attorney Robert Alessi cross-examines Ian Whiffin, a digital intelligence expert with Celebrite during Karen Read's murder retrial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
Karen Read listens to testimony during her murder retrial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
Karen Read speaks to her defense attorney Alan Jackson during her murder retrial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
Ian Whiffin, a digital intelligence expert with Celebrite, testifies under cross-examination by the defense during Karen Read's murder retrial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
Defense attorney Robert Alessi cross-examines Ian Whiffin during Karen Read's murder retrial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
Karen Read listens to testimony during her murder retrial at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., on Tuesday, April 29, 2025. (Libby O'Neill/The Boston Herald via AP, Pool)
Karen Read listens to testimony during her trial, Thursday, April 24, 2025, at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool)
Mass. State Police detective Nicholas Guarino reviews cellular phone logs while testifying during the Karen Read trial at Norfolk Superior Court, Thursday, April 24, 2025, in Dedham, Mass. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa, Pool)
Karen Read, center, speaks with defense team during her trial, Friday, April 25, 2025, at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass. (Josh Reynolds /New York Post via AP, Pool)
Dr. Garrey Faller reviews the medical record of defendant Karen Read as he testified during her trial, Friday, April 25, 2025, at Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass. (Josh Reynolds/New York Post via AP, Pool)
John O'Keefe's mother Peggy recounts hearing about her sons death during the Karen Read trial in Norfolk Superior Court at Dedham, Mass., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025 (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Ian Wiffin, a digital intelligence expert, with Celebrite, testifies under direct examination by special prosecutor Hank Brennan during Karen Read's murder retrial in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham, Mass., Monday April 28, 2025. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)
Special prosecutor Hank Brennan questions Ian Wiffin, a digital intelligence expert with Celebrite, during Karen Read's murder trial in Norfolk Superior Court, in front of Judge Beverly J. Cannone, in Dedham, Mass.,Monday April 28, 2025. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)
An image of Karen Read's SUV with a damaged taillight which was put into evidence is shown during the Karen Read trial in Norfolk Superior Court at Dedham, Mass., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025 (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
A video from a "Ring" camera at John O'Keefe's home, Karen Read is seen arriving in her SUV to look for O'Keefe with Kerry Roberts and Jennifer McCabe is shown during Read's trial in Norfolk Superior Court at Dedham, Mass., on Wednesday, April 23, 2025 (Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger via AP, Pool)
Judge Beverly J. Cannone greets jurors as the murder retrial of Karen Read continues, in Norfolk Superior Court, Dedham, Mass., Monday April 28, 2025. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)
Karen Read listens to the testimony of Cellebrite digital intelligence expert Ian Wiffin, during her murder retrial, in Norfolk Superior Court, in front of Judge Beverly J. Cannone, in Dedham, Mass., Monday April 28, 2025. (Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe via AP, Pool)
