Google’s Advertising Conduct: How Safe Are We?
- Athistaa Puviventhan
- 5 days ago
- 5 min read
Declared a “monopoly” by Northeastern University professor Christo Wilson, Google has long been a focus of regulatory scrutiny on two fronts: antitrust and privacy. Over the years, authorities in the European Union, the Competition Bureau, and the United States Department of Justice have pursued Google for allegedly abusing its market dominance and mishandling user data. The contents below survey how Google’s clashes with regulators have unfolded, highlighting major EU antitrust fines, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuits, and key privacy enforcement actions. Together, these efforts illustrate a transatlantic push to rein in Big Tech’s power and protect consumers.
The European Union’s Scrutiny:
The European Union's privacy laws maintain strict regulations on digital media advertising and privacy, and have targeted Google dating back to 2017. Multiple billion-euro fines have been issued to the tech giant for anti-competitive conduct. In turn, trade-related tension between the U.S. and the EU has tightened. President Trump has posted on Truth Social, calling the action “unfair” and “discriminatory” to American corporations, and later stated to press reporters that he will discuss the matter with the EU directly. His comment states: "We cannot let this happen to brilliant and unprecedented American Ingenuity and, if it does, I will be forced to start a Section 301 proceeding to nullify the unfair penalties being charged to these taxpaying American companies." (Chee, 2025) In the Trade Act of 1974, section 301, titled Relief From Unfair Trading Practices, the text states under the Retaliatory Action subsection: “The level of mandatory action should 'affect goods or services of the foreign country in an amount that is equivalent in value to the burden or restriction being imposed by that country on ‘U.S. commerce.’” (19 U.S.C. § 2411, 2018) In turn, Trump has retaliated with trade tariffs against the EU for the pushback.
Stance with the Department of Justice:
Throughout September 2025, the U.S Department of Justice (DoJ) secured remedies against Google following a federal court ruling that found the company had violated antitrust and privacy laws in Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing search advertising. In verbatim, the section states. “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.” (15 U.S.C. §§ 1-38, 2004) With the launch of AI-integrated applications such as Gemini, Google Assistant, and the recently implemented AI mode on Google Search, the tech firm accessed a large database of information received from users to adjust the fast-developing algorithms accordingly. As a result, a new plan has been set in place by the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.
The key remedies are as follows:
Default exclusivity ban: No deals are to be made with other companies to make any of Google’s applications their default software.
Anti-app bundling: Google is no longer allowed to require the installation or visibility of one of its apps, such as the installation of Chrome, to access the features of Gemini.
Conditional financial incentives: Google cannot make revenue-sharing payments contingent upon the placement of multiple Google apps together.
Restrictions of long-term exclusivity: The company is barred from tying revenue-sharing deals to the requirement that its core apps remain on devices, browsers, or search entry points for durations longer than one year.
Restriction of competing product distribution ban: A hard rule which allows competing general search engines (GSEs) and Generative AI products alongside Google’s services. (U.S Department of Justice, et Al, 2025)
Competition Bureau’s Question of Advertising Practices:
In November 2024, the Competition Bureau of Canada filed a lawsuit against Google for allegedly engaging in anti-competitive conduct in the online display advertising market. The Bureau claims that Google abused its dominance to harm competitors and limit innovation, thus reducing choices for advertisers and publishers (Government of Canada, et Al, 2024). The claim is stated in the context of publishers counting on ad revenue to support their professions. Discoveries made include making it difficult for businesses to use competing services and giving its own tools access to larger advertising spaces to effectively push out competitors. Publishers were pushed to limit themselves to Google’s suite of products and hinder their ability to use rivalling tools. In turn, it increased advertising costs and reduced the revenue which publishers and writers earned, in the name of corporate profit margins. Canadian regulators sought a court order to block Google from continuing these practices, and have left the door open to more drastic measures, including structural separation of parts of Google’s ad business if necessary. The move aligns Canada with parallel antitrust actions in the United States and European Union, reinforcing a broader global reckoning with the concentration of power in digital advertising.
Despite the mountains of lawsuits, violations of international law, and the many legal orders, the core business model Google follows is still intact. It is deeply integrated into our digital infrastructure, so much so that many users are unaware of how tightly controlled the ecosystem is. Regulators have exposed a pattern: default dominance, self-preferencing, locked-in partnerships, and opaque data practices that, while technically legal until challenged, systematically shut out competition and limit user autonomy. To many curious users, it does raise an eyebrow: What does that say about the actual safety of the people using these platforms every day? While several countries have had their victories, they don’t instantly rewrite incentives for large companies to put a halt to their practices, which raises questions about ethicality and power balance. The path forward isn’t just about enforcement, it’s about whether people are willing to demand transparency, choice, and fairness from the digital systems they depend on. Until then, the power remains concentrated, and the burden of ad fairness and data privacy rests on institutions still catching up to a company that moves faster than the rules meant to contain it.
Bibliography:
The Associated Press. (2025, September 5). Google hit with US$3.5 billion fine from European Union in ad-tech antitrust case. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/technology/2025/09/05/google-hit-with-us35-billion-fine-from-european-union-in-ad-tech-antitrust-case/
Chee, F. Y. (2025, September 5). Google hit with $3.45 billion EU antitrust fine over Adtech practices. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/google-hit-with-345-billion-eu-antitrust-fine-over-adtech-practices-2025-09-05/
Competition Bureau Canada. (2024, November 28). Competition Bureau sues Google for anti-competitive conduct in online advertising in Canada. Canada.ca. https://www.canada.ca/en/competition-bureau/news/2024/11/competition-bureau-sues-google-for-anti-competitive-conduct-in-online-advertising-in-canada.html
Mello-Klein, C. (2024, August 6). Is Google a Monopoly? landmark antitrust ruling - and new northeastern research - show that it is. Northeastern Global News. https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/08/05/google-monopoly-antitrust-ruling/#:~:text=Landmark%20antitrust%20ruling%20%E2%80%94%20and%20new%20Northeastern%20research,dominates%20nearly%20every%20part%20of%20the%20search%20market.
US Department of Justice. (2025, September 2). Department of Justice wins significant remedies against Google. Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google
Section 2, Chapter 1, Title 15 of the U.S. Code.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
