The WebMD and Internet Brands entities are seeking damages for what they claim are years of monopolistic practices by Google in the digital advertising technology space, specifically targeting Google's DoubleClick for Publishers ad server and AdX exchange products. The companies, which operate some of the most visited health and content websites, allege Google used its dominant position to suppress their advertising revenues while charging supracompetitive fees for essential ad tech services.
The lawsuit builds directly on U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema's April 17, 2025 ruling in United States v. Google LLC, which found that Google 'violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and [] unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.' The plaintiffs quote extensively from that decision, noting that Google's 'exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers,' including themselves.
According to the complaint, Google systematically rigged its advertising auctions through what the company internally called 'secret policies and auction manipulations.' As Judge Brinkema found, Google 'implemented two policies that incentivized both advertisers and publishers to use AdX' — making AdX the only exchange where Google Ads demand could bid, and requiring publishers to use DoubleClick for Publishers to access real-time bids from AdX. The plaintiffs argue this left them with no economically viable alternative, stating that 'for Plaintiffs, the need to sell ad inventory online means the need to do business with Google.'
The case traces a complex web of allegedly anticompetitive schemes dating back over a decade, including 'Project Bernanke' (2013), which the complaint says could 'depress a publisher's revenue upwards of 40%,' and 'Enhanced Dynamic Allocation' (2014), which allegedly allowed Google to 'co-opt premium ad inventory already purchased and reserved for direct sales.' The plaintiffs claim Google used these programs to divert revenues into what they call a 'separate slush fund' to manipulate competitive auctions.
Internet Brands argues Google's conduct violated its own contractual terms, noting that Google's terms prohibited using 'Company Entered Data' to inform pricing on Google's own services without express authorization. The complaint alleges Google 'secretly violated Google's terms and conditions with publishers and directly contradicted the representations that Google made to Plaintiffs to induce them to use its publisher ad server.' The companies say Google 'falsely represented that it was running fair and transparent auctions' while implementing these hidden auction manipulations.
The complaint details how Google's market dominance extends across the advertising technology stack, with DoubleClick for Publishers controlling 'over 90% of the market for publisher ad serving worldwide' and AdX controlling '60% of the ad exchange market worldwide.' The plaintiffs note that Google's market share is 'roughly nine times larger than the share held by Google's next-largest competitor, which had only 6% of the market,' according to the Virginia court's findings.
WebMD and Internet Brands are seeking treble damages under federal antitrust law, injunctive relief, and restitution under California's Unfair Competition Law. The case adds to mounting legal pressure on Google's advertising business, which faces ongoing antitrust scrutiny from regulators and competitors. The lawsuit's timing, coming months after the definitive federal court ruling against Google's ad tech practices, positions the plaintiffs to leverage established findings of antitrust violations in their damages claims.