Navigating the Google Lawsuit: A Call for Advertiser Accountability and Market Diversification
The digital advertising industry is no stranger to scrutiny. Still, the latest developments in the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google have reignited an important conversation—one that’s less about courtroom drama and more about how advertisers and industry partners choose to invest brands’ budgets.
This isn’t about DSPs or SSPs alone. It’s about how power is concentrated, how competition is stifled, and what we, as those who fund the ecosystem, can do to influence a better future.
Google’s role in digital media has moved beyond dominance—it’s become dependency. What started as a powerful platform is now an unavoidable gatekeeper. Whether it’s black-boxed access to inventory, rising media costs with little explanation, or the subtle erosion of buyer control, advertisers have been nudged into a system where choice is increasingly theoretical. You’re told to play by their rules if you want to reach your audience across YouTube or any Google-owned & operated sites.
And we’ve seen this story before. When one company controls too much—media, measurement, and delivery—they create an environment where competition flatlines and innovation stalls. It’s not just a monopoly on inventory; it’s a monopoly on progress.
So, where do we go from here?
I’ll be honest: part of me is apprehensive. But another part is excited.
Because this moment presents a real opportunity, especially for competitors and smaller DSPs. Platforms like Yahoo and Samsung Ads are well-positioned to step into the gap and offer something different. Something better. But they can’t do it alone. They need support. They need a signal. They need dollars.
Because every dollar we spend sends a message. Not just about campaign performance, but about the kind of ecosystem we want to build. And right now, we have a choice: keep reinforcing the cycle of dependency, or invest in the kind of competition that creates long-term value.
That means scrutinizing the platforms where your money goes. Asking harder questions. Refusing to accept nickel-and-diming for basic capabilities like cross-device tracking or automation. We’re at a point where costs and fees are creeping up, media quality is getting harder to confirm, and platform fees are eating away at actual campaign impact. It’s a familiar pattern—but it’s not one we have to repeat.
Turning Scrutiny in Strategy: A Path Forward for the Industry
We can’t control how the legal process plays out, but we can control how we respond as advertisers. Here’s where to start:
- Reevaluate Your Media Investments
Platform convenience shouldn’t come at the cost of clarity. Take time to understand where your budget is going, how fees are structured, and whether your spend is reaching the right audiences in quality environments. Reconsider long-held assumptions and explore whether your current partners still align with your goals.
- Support Alternative DSPs—and give them room to grow.
Platforms like Yahoo and Samsung Ads are in a position to offer meaningful alternatives, but they need advertiser backing to scale and innovate. When we diversify spend, we create the conditions for real competition. It’s not just about shifting media dollars—it’s about shaping the future of the ecosystem. - Push for transparency, not just performance.
Performance without transparency is a short-term gain at a long-term cost. Choose partners who are upfront about where your ads are running and how optimizations are actually working. The more we reward transparency, the more we raise the standard for everyone. - Remember, your dollars have power.
Every campaign is a vote for the kind of industry we want to work in. If we want to avoid another cycle of consolidation and opacity, we need to be intentional about how and where we spend today.
If we want better outcomes, we have to fund better options.
This isn’t about being anti-Google. It’s about being pro-growth. Pro-transparency. Pro-future.
If we want a more open, competitive, and sustainable industry, we can’t just wait for regulation to fix it. We have to be willing to lead the change—with our decisions, our dollars, and our standards.