A federal judge in New York has ordered six antitrust lawsuits brought by Google’s advertising technology rivals to be consolidated into two streamlined complaints, a move aimed at reducing duplication and speeding up litigation in the sprawling ad tech multidistrict case.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled Tuesday that four lawsuits originally filed in Virginia will be merged into a single complaint, while two cases filed separately in New York will be paired together. The decision affects claims brought by OpenX Technologies, Magnite, PubMatic, Equativ, Index Exchange, and Kargo against Google over its dominant role in digital advertising placement technology.

“Further amendment and coordination of pleadings and motions benefits the plaintiffs by enabling the court to rule more efficiently,” Judge Castel said. He added that consolidation would also spare Google from repetitive briefing, though it would require plaintiffs to pare down overlapping allegations and claims already addressed by the court.

Under the ruling, OpenX, Magnite, PubMatic, and Equativ must file a joint complaint by February 23, while Index Exchange and Kargo must submit a separate consolidated filing. Judge Castel directed both groups to include shared allegations alongside sections tailored to each plaintiff’s individual claims.

Google declined to comment on the decision. Representatives for the rival companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Rather than entertaining further briefing on consolidation, Judge Castel instructed Google to prepare motions to dismiss addressing both consolidated complaints. He also made clear that Google will not be allowed to split its dismissal arguments by first litigating personal jurisdiction issues before addressing the sufficiency of the pleadings.

The court rejected the rivals’ objections that consolidation would obscure their distinct injuries. Judge Castel noted that the companies’ proposal would otherwise lead to six overlapping motions to dismiss, potentially generating hundreds of pages of redundant briefing.

Some of the rival lawsuits, he observed, were filed before his October ruling holding Google to the same antitrust liability findings reached earlier in Virginia federal court in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. That earlier decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, found that Google unlawfully entrenched its monopoly in publisher-side advertising technology and its AdX exchange by tying products and limiting rivals’ ability to compete.

Judge Brinkema’s ruling has had a ripple effect across multiple cases now pending against Google, including suits brought by state attorneys general, publishers, advertisers, and ad tech rivals. In October, Judge Castel applied Brinkema’s liability findings to the multidistrict litigation pending in New York, again concluding that Google illegally favored its own ad tech tools and locked customers into its ecosystem.

The rival lawsuits target Google’s control over key components of the digital advertising market, including publisher ad servers, advertiser tools, and the exchange that matches ads to available inventory in real-time auctions.

Judge Castel also noted that one rival, OpenX, had already indicated plans to amend its complaint independently, signaling the need for greater coordination among plaintiffs.

The consolidation order comes as the broader ad tech litigation continues to evolve. Judge Castel recently certified a class of publishers while denying class status to advertisers and certain other publisher claims. Google has said it plans to appeal the Virginia liability ruling and continues to contest the claims against it.

The multidistrict litigation is In re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:21 md 03010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.