.png){kind=logo}
Alphabet Inc.'s Google, one of the largest and most influential technology companies in the world, finds itself facing mounting pressure from regulators, particularly in the UK. The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has accused Google of abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology (ad tech) sector. The central question is whether Google’s actions amount to an illegal monopoly, stifling competition and harming both advertisers and publishers. This situation is part of a larger global reckoning for the tech giant, as both European and US authorities scrutinize its practices. Here's an in-depth look at why Google's search monopoly may be deemed illegal in the UK.
Google occupies a unique and powerful position in the digital advertising ecosystem. It collects vast amounts of data on users through its search engine, enabling advertisers to target ads effectively. However, its reach doesn’t stop there. Google also sells ad space and provides the technology that allows advertisers to connect with publishers who sell ad space. With algorithms and automated systems, Google can offer ad space, set prices, and match advertisers with publishers as users click on web pages.
In 2022, Alphabet Inc. earned approximately US$225 billion from online advertising, which accounted for about 80% of its total revenue. This demonstrates the sheer scale of its dominance in the ad tech industry, where it holds sway over the pricing and distribution of online ads.
However, the CMA's concerns go beyond Google's efficiency in connecting advertisers with publishers. According to the agency, Google is prioritizing its services over those of its competitors, which could potentially harm thousands of UK publishers and advertisers. In doing so, Google could be restricting competition and unfairly benefiting from its dominant market position. This has raised alarm bells among regulators, who argue that Google's search monopoly and ad tech practices may be illegal under UK competition laws.
One of the main concerns that the CMA has come up with pertains to how Google practices may harm UK publishers and advertisers. The investigation conducted by the agency ascertains that Google is abusing its leading position by granting undue preference to its own services over those of its competitors. Such practices could raise the costs for advertisers and reduce the revenues of the publishers, especially the small players who need a fair and open marketplace in digital advertising.
Juliette Enser, the CMA’s interim executive director of enforcement, emphasized the importance of fair competition in the ad tech sector. She stated, “It’s so important that publishers and advertisers, who enable this free content, can benefit from effective competition and get a fair deal when buying or selling digital advertising space.” Without effective competition, publishers may struggle to monetize their content, and advertisers may face inflated prices or reduced options when purchasing ad space.
If Google is abusing the algorithms to favor its in-house services, then the ultimate result may be a distortion of the entire digital advertising ecosystem: less innovation, less choice for consumers, and a less competitive marketplace. UK antitrust laws are designed to block just that kind of behavior: a dominant player takes advantage of its market power to squash competition and hold onto its monopoly.
Unsurprisingly, Google has pushed back against the CMA’s findings, dismissing them as based on "flawed interpretations of the ad tech sector." Dan Taylor, the VP of Google for Global Ads, declared that his company disagreed with the conclusion of the CMA and would thus file its opposition. The probable nucleus of Google's defense would be that its ad tech systems enable both advertisers and publishers to derive benefits by offering them an integrated platform through which they can connect, transact, and optimize campaigns.
Put simply, in Google's interpretation, the company helps make the content of the internet free to customers in return for its collection of user data and selling targeted advertising. The objection from regulators is that such market power can breed anticompetitive behavior, but it does not account for the benefit of the consumer and wider digital ecosystem.
The UK is not alone in its scrutiny of Google’s dominance. Across the Atlantic, a trial is likely to begin in September pitting the US DoJ against Google, alleging that Google has monopolized the ad tech industry by using its dominant position in the market to illegally maintain its market power. According to the DoJ, Google’s practices allow it to retain at least $0.30 of every dollar spent by advertisers through its online advertising tools, thereby limiting competition and restricting the ability of rivals to challenge Google’s market position.
In Europe, too, the European Commission had expressed concerns about ad tech practices by Google. In July 2023, the Commission issued an order stating that behavioral remedies may not be sufficient to address Google’s abusive conduct. This could pave the way for more severe measures, including potentially breaking up Google’s ad tech business from its core services. Such a move would be unprecedented and could have far-reaching implications for the global digital advertising market.
If, following an investigation, the CMA concludes that indeed Google has committed illegal monopoly practices, then the results might prove catastrophic. Under UK law, the powers of CMA extend to the issuance of fines of as much as 10% of the overall revenues of a firm for violation of competition laws. For Alphabet Inc., this could mean a fine running into billions of dollars. Aside from the fines, the CMA may also direct Google to make far-reaching changes in its ad tech business, including segregating certain operations to avoid any conflict of interest and to create a more level playing field for competitors.
Yet, the CMA decision might have wider reverberations, regulators elsewhere in the world may follow suit with equivalent action against Google. That would raise the financial and operational bar for the company but might, in turn, lead to a fundamental remolding of its business model.
Ongoing investigations and trials in the UK, US, and EU also reflect a growing concern by policymakers over Google's market power and what that means for competition. While Google insisted its systems benefit consumers and businesses alike, regulators said its dominance allows it to engage in anticompetitive behavior that harms smaller competitors and reduces choice.
Each of these cases has great implications for the future of Google's search monopoly. An adverse ruling against the company may be forcing a sea change in the digital advertising industry, thus giving an avenue to newcomers to take on the market dominance of Google. For now, the world waits with bated breath as the battles make their way through the courts-as the landscape of digital advertising and, indeed, technology hangs in the balance.
