FOLLOW US

Digital publishing heavyweight Ziff Davis Inc. has launched a sweeping antitrust battle against Google, accusing the tech titan of manipulating the machinery behind online advertising in a way that squeezes publishers and stifles competition.

In a complaint filed Friday in New York federal court, Ziff Davis alleges that Google and its parent company, Alphabet Inc., unlawfully seized and maintained monopoly power in two critical corners of the digital advertising ecosystem: the publisher ad server market and the ad exchange market.

At the heart of the case is a claim that Google built a tollbooth on the information superhighway — and then charged everyone to pass.

Allegations of Monopoly Power and Depressed Ad Prices

According to the lawsuit, Google leverages its dominance to dictate how publishers sell advertising space, compelling them to route increasing shares of their inventory through Google’s systems — often at reduced prices.

“Google uses this monopoly to control how publishers sell their ad slots,” the complaint asserts, alleging that the result is diminished revenue for publishers and Google’s rivals while the company harvests “exorbitant monopoly profits.”

Ziff Davis oversees a sprawling portfolio of 45 brands, including CNET, Mashable and PCMag. The publisher says it produces nearly 2 million articles annually, while its websites and mobile apps collectively attract hundreds of millions of unique monthly visitors.

Despite its size and industry standing, the company argues it has not shared proportionately in the wealth of a digital advertising sector it values at $200 billion.

“Yet, Ziff Davis has not shared equally with Google in this massive digital advertising market despite Ziff Davis’s size, value to readers, and industry prestige,” the complaint states.

Inside the Digital Ad Auction System

Digital advertising hinges on split-second auctions. When a webpage or app opens, technology identifies an available advertising “impression” — an opportunity to display an ad — and invites bids from advertisers.

Publishers rely on ad servers to manage these impressions, while ad exchanges conduct real-time auctions among buyers.

Ziff Davis contends that Google’s publisher ad server, formerly known as DoubleClick for Publishers, commands more than 90% of the publisher ad server market. Meanwhile, Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange allegedly controls between 60% and 70% of the ad exchange market, leaving competitors with only single-digit shares.

The lawsuit further claims Google effectively bars its buyers from participating in rival exchanges, tightening its grip on both sides of the marketplace.

“With control over the largest ad exchange and the largest ad server … Google has carried out a sophisticated, anticompetitive, and deceptive scheme for well over a decade,” the suit alleges.

Claims of Tying, Bid Rigging and Inside Information

The complaint accuses Google of forcing publishers to use its ad server by tying it to its exchange services — a practice known in antitrust law as unlawful tying.

By controlling ad serving technology, Ziff Davis says, Google suppresses competition among exchanges and pushes down the prices publishers receive for their ad inventory.

In particularly sharp language, the suit alleges that Google “rigs” exchange auctions by exploiting inside information obtained through its ad server platform. That informational edge, Ziff Davis contends, allows Google to tilt auctions in its favor — reducing revenues for publishers while padding its own bottom line.

The lawsuit cites a striking figure: in 2022 alone, Google allegedly generated $30 billion from manipulating ad space auctions across the internet.

“Google’s scheme has been wildly profitable,” the complaint states.

Legal Claims and Broader Antitrust Context

Ziff Davis brings multiple claims under the federal Sherman Act, including monopolization of the general publisher ad server market for open display inventory, monopolization of the ad exchange market, and unlawful tying of its ad server to its exchange.

The suit also alleges deceptive acts and practices under New York’s general business law, as well as common-law fraud and unjust enrichment.

Ziff Davis seeks injunctive relief aimed at restoring competition, along with compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and litigation costs.

The case arrives amid mounting legal scrutiny of Google’s advertising empire. Last year, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that Google illegally monopolized markets for display advertising placement technology.

Separately, a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general has filed litigation in Texas federal court accusing Google of monopolization and misrepresentation similar to the claims raised in Virginia. In July, the Texas judge paused a jury trial in that case pending final judgment in the Virginia matter.

The legal storm intensified last month when The Atlantic filed its own antitrust lawsuit in New York federal court, echoing allegations that Google cornered the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets and siphoned billions in revenue.

Additionally, multidistrict litigation in New York consolidates four lawsuits from ad tech rivals — OpenX Technologies Inc., Magnite Inc., PubMatic Inc. and Equativ SAS — originally filed in Virginia. Two more cases filed in New York by Index Exchange Inc. and Kargo Global LLC have also been paired with the consolidated proceedings.

Responses From Both Sides

Representatives for Ziff Davis did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment regarding the newly filed complaint.

A Google spokesperson dismissed the allegations as unfounded.

“Advertisers and publishers have many choices and when they choose Google’s ad tech tools it’s because they are effective, affordable and easy to use,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

Ziff Davis is represented by John Thorne, Daniel G. Bird, Bethan R. Jones, Christopher C. Goodnow, Daniel S. Severson, Mark P. Hirschboeck, Eliana Margo Pfeffer, Eric J. Maier and Sven E. Henningson of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

Counsel information for Google was not immediately available Tuesday.