This post was sponsored by Silver Arbitration Law, PLLC. The opinions expressed in this article are the sponsor’s own.
If you manage Google Search campaigns, you have explained rising CPCs many times: more competitors, broader match types, a lower Quality Score, an account that needed restructuring. Each explanation is plausible.
I have worked in arbitration since before Google existed, as both counsel and arbitrator. Below I set out what the record shows: what the court found, which auction changes it named and when they ran, and what you would have to establish about your own account before any of it applies to you.
Why The Search Antitrust Ruling Matters For Digital Paid Marketers & Advertisers
In August 2024, after a ten-week trial, the court found that Google “has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads” (Mem. Op. at 4).
Supracompetitive means above the price a competitive market would produce.
The trial record showed that Google’s ads team used internal “pricing knobs” that raised what a winning ad paid without any change in bids, ad quality or competition, mostly by inflating the runner-up’s score that sets the winner’s CPC.
Dates Of The Auction Changes That Raised CPCs
Four of these instances have date ranges you can check against your own account:
- Format pricing, 2012–2019. Ads using sitelinks, callouts or structured snippets paid more to maintain their position. By 2019 the charges generated about 15% of text ad revenue (UPX0042, UPX0045, UPX0512; Mem. Op. at 84, 86; Pls.’ Proposed Findings at 231).
- Squashing, 2014 onward. Trial exhibits show Google raised the predicted click-through rate of every ad except the leader, which raised the winner’s price without any improvement in the competing ad (UPX0442, UPX0051; Mem. Op. at 83–84).
- rGSP, 2019 onward. Under rGSP, Google multiplies the runner-up’s score by an adjustable factor; the winner pays against that inflated score or is randomly swapped out of the slot. Projected effect: a 5–6% CPC increase on top slots. No opt-out (UPX1045, UPX0457, UPX0059; Mem. Op. at 85; Pls.’ Proposed Findings at 235–236).
Advertisers were not told. Google’s Vice President of Ads testified: “We tend not to tell advertisers about pricing changes” (Tr. 1226, Dischler). The court found that “[m]any advertisers do not even realize that Google is responsible for the changes in price” (Mem. Op. at 91–93, 260).
What To Do Next
Individual advertisers still need to establish whether they were affected and by how much. The first step is to get informed, and there are two ways to do it. You can ask an arbitration lawyer to assess your account; I do this for advertisers, and you can book a short call with me. Or you can read up on the case first: this research prompt has an AI assistant brief you on what the courts found and whether it fits a business like yours.
Start With The Google Ads Spend You Need To Review
Identify Ad Types, Years & Markets
The search ruling covers general search text ads. The court did not find a monopoly in the broader market for all search advertising, which includes ads sold by retailers such as Amazon and Walmart. If much of your spend went to Shopping or Performance Max, separate the text-ad portion before drawing conclusions about your account. This research prompt has an AI assistant tell you which ad types and years of spend count.
Clarify The Business & Agency Behind The Account
Note which legal entity accepted Google’s advertising terms and paid the invoices, and which agencies or manager accounts ran the campaigns and when. Those details determine who can review the account and who would raise any claim, and they are the first thing counsel will ask for.
Verify The Court Sources Behind The Search-Ruling Claims
Keep The Search & Ad-Tech Cases Separate
Display spend falls under a second ruling. On April 17, 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Google had monopolized two parts of the display advertising chain.
That case focused largely on publishers, and the court did not accept every market claim the government brought. If you bought display inventory through Google’s ad tech tools, it raises a separate question about how those transactions worked. Which ruling matters to you depends on the products you used and the years you used them.
Distinguish Findings, Appeals & Unverified Claims
Court findings in this article are quoted with a page cite to the opinion. Anything cited to an exhibit number (UPX, DX) or a transcript (Tr., Dep.) is a trial exhibit or sworn testimony, most of it Google’s own. The two are not the same: a finding is what the court concluded; an exhibit is evidence the court heard.
Google disagrees with the ruling and is appealing. The court’s September 2025 remedies decision requires Google to disclose material changes to its ad auction publicly. Advertisers should therefore have more information about changes that affect what they pay.
Prepare Account-Specific Questions For Counsel
Confirm Applicable Terms, Claim Ownership & Timing
Google’s advertising terms contain an arbitration clause. Advertisers bound by that clause must pursue covered disputes through individual arbitration and waive the right to bring a class action. Each advertiser pursuing such a claim brings it through the American Arbitration Association. The court’s findings provide a starting point; reviewing an account and deciding whether to file remain separate steps.
Is A Claim Worth Pursuing?
Could Filing Affect Your Google Account?
How Much Work Is It?
What If An Agency Manages The Account?
Whoever paid for the ads holds the claim, and anything paid out on it goes back to them. If your agency ran the campaigns and you paid the bills, the claim is yours. Your agency can pull the spend history, name the campaigns and years involved, and help you take the questions above to a lawyer.
Decide What To Do After Reviewing The Evidence
If you have questions about Google-related risk or what to consider before pursuing a claim, you can book a short call with our team. The call is free and nothing is shared with Google.
Image Credits
Featured Image: Image by Silver Arbitration. Used with permission.
In-Post Images: Images by Silver Arbitration. Used with permission.
Disclosure
Attorney Advertising. Mark Beckett, attorney admitted in New York. This article is sponsored by Silver Arbitration Law, PLLC. It is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Claims against Google are pursued through individual arbitration under Google’s Terms of Service, not in court. Quotations from court opinions are reproduced verbatim from the published decisions in United States v. Google LLC*, D.D.C. (Aug. 5, 2024) and* United States v. Google LLC*, E.D. Va. (Apr. 17, 2025).* Not affiliated with or endorsed by Google LLC.
