Google was hit with a €2.95 billion penalty—just under $3.5 billion—after EU antitrust regulators concluded the company abused dominance in digital advertising by favoring its own exchange, AdX, inside both its publisher ad server and its ad-buying tools. The European Commission also ordered the company to end the conduct and address conflicts of interest along its adtech supply chain within 60 days.
What the EU said Google did
The Commission found that Google leveraged control over multiple layers of the programmatic stack—publisher ad serving, exchange, and demand tools—to steer trades toward its own marketplace. Investigators said Google gave AdX informational and transactional advantages from its ad server and buying products, undermining rival exchanges and depressing competition for publisher inventory.
Self-preferencing in this context isn’t a single switch; it’s about how auctions are run, who sees what data, and which pipes connect first. European officials argued that choices embedded in Google’s stack systematically tilted real-time bidding in AdX’s favor, limiting the ability of publishers and advertisers to secure the best price or route demand to competing venues.
The findings align with concerns long raised by regulators and industry groups. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority previously estimated Google’s share of the publisher ad server market at over 90% and found it held substantial influence across exchanges and demand-side tools. France’s Autorité de la concurrence fined Google in 2021 over adtech practices and secured commitments around interoperability and auction design.
Google plans to appeal
A company spokesperson signaled an appeal, telling reporters, as noted by The Wall Street Journal, that providing services to both buyers and sellers is common in finance and tech and that advertisers and publishers have extensive alternatives. Appeals in major EU competition cases typically take years, and fines are often held in escrow while courts review the substance and the remedies.
Google has argued that innovations such as header bidding, the rise of rival supply-side platforms, and the growth of retail media networks demonstrate robust competition. The Commission counters that when a single firm operates critical rails and the marketplace itself, neutrality must be demonstrable, not assumed.
Beyond the money: remedies that could bite
The order goes further than a monetary penalty. Brussels demanded that Google end self-preferencing and implement measures to resolve inherent conflicts between its ad server, exchange, and demand businesses. In EU antitrust practice, that typically means behavioral obligations—auction neutrality, equal access to data signals, and non-discriminatory interconnection—backed by independent monitoring.
While structural separation is rare in EU competition enforcement, the Commission has warned in previous cases that breakups can be considered if behavioral remedies prove insufficient. The decision also arrives as the Digital Markets Act bans certain self-preferencing by designated gatekeepers. Expect close coordination between antitrust remedies and DMA obligations to ensure sustained compliance across the adtech stack.
What this could mean for publishers and advertisers
For publishers, a neutral ad server and exchange routing could widen access to competing demand, potentially lifting yield. The French competition authority reported improved interoperability following Google’s 2021 commitments, and European publisher groups have pushed for stronger guarantees that auction rules and latency do not privilege any single marketplace.
Advertisers may benefit from more transparent and competitive auctions, where media dollars are less likely to be steered by vertically integrated incentives. Industry bodies like IAB Europe have called for clearer, auditable data flows in programmatic trading—an area the Commission is poised to scrutinize as part of any compliance plan.
Global ripple effects
The EU decision lands alongside parallel probes and lawsuits. The U.S. Department of Justice has sought structural relief in its adtech case, arguing that operating both the exchange and the tools that trade on it distorts competition. The UK CMA continues to assess remedies for competition in digital advertising, while Australia’s ACCC has recommended new powers to tackle dominance in adtech intermediation.
Taken together, the trajectory is clear: regulators are focused on the “plumbing” of digital ads, not just market share in isolation. If the order forces more neutral auction mechanics and equal access to signals across the chain, the practical impact could exceed the headline fine—reshaping how billions in European advertising are routed every day.