The ongoing antitrust trial against Google isn’t just a legal fight, it’s a battle for the survival of journalism in the digital age.

Google

Matthew Wheatland, Chief Digital Officer at DailyMail.com, testified that Google’s grip on online display advertising is choking the revenue news organisations depend on. For anyone in the media industry, this feels all too familiar – Google, at least allegedly, controls online display advertising, and journalism is paying the price.

Traditional ad revenue has all but dried up, I mean, just look at what’s happening over at Media24. And subscription models barely scratch the surface, display advertising is the last reliable source of income for most news outlets. The catch? Google dominates this space, controlling every step of the process.

Google’s tight grip on ad money

Some background – the US Department of Justice (DOJ) is accusing Google of monopolising online display advertising, essentially blocking competitors and forcing publishers to accept whatever terms Google offers.

Wheatland’s testimony laid it out in simple terms: Google’s tools – ad servers, ad exchanges, ad networks – are used at every stage of the ad-buying process, giving them control over how much money publishers can make.

And guess what? Publishers are getting the short end of the stick.

Every time you load a webpage and see an ad, that ad is bought and sold in milliseconds through an automated auction process called programmatic advertising. Google runs this auction and charges up to 36 cents on every dollar made from ads. That means less money for publishers and more profit for – you guessed it – Google.

Wheatland shared how DailyMail.com considered moving away from Google’s ad server, DFP, which is used by 90% of publishers. But doing so would cost them nearly 30% of their revenue. Why? Because DFP is linked to Google’s AdX exchange, which is connected to Google Ads, the largest pool of advertisers.

In other words, ditching Google would be like cutting off a major lifeline.

Monopolistic behaviour?

The heart of the DOJ’s case is Google’s complete control over the online ad ecosystem. There are ad servers (used by publishers to sell ad space), ad networks (used by advertisers to buy that space), and ad exchanges (where everything comes together). Google runs all three, which means it gets to set the rules and, of course, collect hefty fees.

Google’s AdX exchange charges a 20% commission, much higher than smaller competitors, and publishers can’t escape the system without losing access to valuable ad revenue.

Wheatland pointed out that other ad exchanges charge far lower fees, some as low as 7%, but Google’s dominance forces publishers to stick with them, even at a loss. It’s a classic monopoly play: control the market, crush the competition, and rake in the profits. And who suffers? Newsrooms everywhere.

The future of journalism

The problem isn’t just about ad dollars – it’s about what those dollars fund. Fewer ad dollars mean fewer journalists, fewer investigations and fewer stories that matter.

Local news and publishers, in particular, are already hanging by a thread. If Google continues to dominate, many news organisations won’t have the resources to stay afloat, let alone provide the coverage their communities need.

If the US court rules against Google, the landscape could change dramatically. A breakup of Google’s ad business would introduce much-needed competition, likely lowering fees for publishers and increasing their revenue. More money would mean more journalists, better reporting, and a healthier media ecosystem overall.

But if Google prevails, the future looks bleak. News organisations will continue to be at the mercy of Google’s system, unable to control their own financial destiny. And for smaller outlets, especially local ones, it could unfortunately be the end.

As someone in the media industry, I’m rooting for change. Journalism can’t survive under these conditions, and if Google keeps raking in billions while newsrooms struggle to make ends meet, we’re all worse off for it.

The stakes in this trial are high, and the future of the press is hanging in the balance.