The Atlantic Month-to-month Group filed a federal antitrust lawsuit as we speak in opposition to Google and its guardian firm Alphabet, alleging the tech large systematically disadvantaged the 168-year-old publication of promoting income by means of unlawful monopolization of digital promoting expertise markets.

The 94-page criticism, filed as Case No. 1:26-cv-00272 within the U.S. District Court docket for the Southern District of New York, builds straight on Judge Leonie Brinkema’s April 2025 ruling that discovered Google “willfully engaged in a sequence of anticompetitive acts to amass and keep monopoly energy” in writer advert server and advert alternate markets. The Atlantic now seeks financial damages and injunctive reduction for what it characterizes as greater than a decade of misleading and anticompetitive conduct.

In accordance with the criticism, Google controls greater than 90% of the writer advert server market by means of its DoubleClick for Publishers product and between 60-70% of the advert alternate market by means of DoubleClick Advert Alternate. This dominance throughout a number of layers of the promoting expertise stack created what The Atlantic describes as an insurmountable battle of curiosity—equal to “Goldman or Citibank owned the NYSE,” in accordance with one Google worker quoted in court docket paperwork.

The publication, which serves roughly 14 million distinctive guests month-to-month and averages greater than 50 million web page views per 30 days, depends on digital promoting for a major proportion of its income. The Atlantic employs greater than 200 people centered on publishing, together with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists who’ve earned three such awards within the final decade. The criticism alleges Google’s conduct straight decreased the publication’s skill to put money into high quality journalism by artificially miserable costs for its promoting stock.

Secret public sale manipulation applications

The lawsuit particulars a number of covert applications Google allegedly used to govern promoting auctions with out writer information. Chief amongst these was “Undertaking Bernanke,” launched in 2013, which the criticism describes as a complicated bid-rigging scheme that generated billions in extra revenue for Google at publishers’ expense.

In accordance with court docket paperwork, Undertaking Bernanke manipulated bids that Google Advertisements submitted to Google’s advert alternate. Google would deflate the second-highest bid—usually eliminating it solely—whereas inflating the very best bid earlier than submitting them to auctions. This allowed Google to underpay publishers for his or her stock whereas persevering with to cost advertisers as in the event that they have been competing in additional aggressive auctions. Google pocketed the distinction and used what inside paperwork known as the “Bernanke pool” to bankroll money-losing bids in different auctions particularly to beat out rival exchanges.

“In 2022 alone, Google made $30 billion from manipulating auctions for advert area throughout the Web,” the criticism states. Google utilized Bernanke “on an auction-by-auction foundation, recalculating a rigged bid every time, thereby individually and independently manipulating the worth paid to publishers on billions of advert auctions.”

The criticism alleges Google intentionally hid Undertaking Bernanke from publishers for years. Inner communications confirmed Google workers warned in opposition to disclosing this system, with one worker noting “the primary rule of Bernanke is we do not speak about Bernanke.” Google additionally withheld public sale information that publishers may need used to uncover the manipulation.

When Google purportedly eradicated some anticompetitive benefits in 2019, the corporate concurrently launched what the criticism characterizes as functionally an identical replacements. The so-called “Minimum Bid to Win” featuregives profitable bidders with the second-highest worth positioned in auctions—exactly the within info wanted to narrowly outbid opponents in future comparable auctions.

Final Look benefit and Enhanced Dynamic Allocation

The criticism describes how Google gave its advert alternate preferential entry to writer stock by means of a follow known as “Final Look.” Fairly than compete in real-time alongside rival exchanges, Google’s alternate may view opponents’ bids earlier than submitting its personal, permitting it to win impressions by bidding only one penny larger than the following highest supply.

“Having the ability to view its opponents’ bids offered Google and its promoting clients with a major informational benefit that considerably deprived different opponents within the advert alternate area,” in accordance with Choose Brinkema’s April ruling cited within the criticism.

The Atlantic additionally challenges Google’s “Enhanced Dynamic Allocation” function, which the corporate launched in 2014. This mechanism pressured publishers to make each impression obtainable on the market by means of Google’s alternate, even impressions that publishers had already negotiated to promote on to advertisers at assured costs. Google transformed these direct offers into artificially low “short-term” CPMs that its alternate may beat by bidding only one penny larger, successfully permitting Google to cherry-pick publishers’ most beneficial stock.

The criticism alleges Google represented that Enhanced Dynamic Allocation would shield publishers’ direct offers and improve programmatic income. These representations have been false, in accordance with the lawsuit. Internally, Google knew the function improved solely its personal yield, not publishers’ backside line. Regardless of quite a few inquiries from publishers together with The Atlantic, Google selected to not present the information obligatory for publishers to confirm whether or not the function truly benefited them.

Tying preparations and Unified Pricing Guidelines

The lawsuit alleges Google illegally tied its writer advert server to its advert alternate, forcing publishers to make use of each merchandise collectively. In accordance with the criticism, Google permits publishers to obtain real-time bids from its alternate provided that additionally they use Google’s advert server. As a result of Google’s alternate controls such a big share of advertiser demand—significantly from small and medium-sized advertisers who use Google Advertisements solely—publishers can not afford to forgo entry.

“The Atlantic couldn’t afford to forgo essentially the most priceless real-time bids from the biggest alternate, although it didn’t need to hand over management of its stock to Google,” the criticism states.

This tying arrangement has driven virtually every remaining publisher ad server rival out of business, in accordance with the lawsuit. Whereas Google’s advert server managed roughly 50% of the market when Google acquired it in 2008, it now controls greater than 90%.

In 2019, Google applied “Unified Pricing Guidelines” that prohibited publishers from setting totally different worth flooring for various exchanges or advertisers. Beforehand, publishers together with The Atlantic used differential worth flooring as their main device for introducing competitors and mitigating Google’s benefits. The criticism alleges Google eradicated this functionality over publishers’ objections particularly to entrench its alternate’s dominance.

“Differential worth flooring weren’t a panacea and by no means may have substituted for a good public sale within the advert server,” the criticism acknowledges. “That’s as a result of a writer couldn’t know, when setting a ground, what the utmost obtainable bid from the customer would show to be.” Nonetheless, differential flooring remained priceless as a result of they pressured Google’s alternate to compete extra vigorously for impressions.

Monetary hurt and misleading practices

The Atlantic alleges it has suffered substantial financial hurt as a direct results of Google’s conduct. In accordance with the criticism, Google’s varied public sale manipulation schemes—together with Final Look, Undertaking Bernanke, Dynamic Income Share, and Unified Pricing Guidelines—resulted in systematic underpayment for The Atlantic’s promoting stock throughout billions of transactions.

The lawsuit contains claims below New York Normal Enterprise Legislation for misleading acts and practices, alleging Google made quite a few misrepresentations about how its promoting merchandise functioned. For years, Google publicly represented that its alternate ran a “sealed bid second-price public sale,” when inside paperwork present the corporate was secretly working manipulated auctions by means of Undertaking Bernanke and different applications.

Google contractually agreed with The Atlantic that it might not use writer information “that isn’t usually shared with consumers” for functions of informing bids made by Google. The criticism alleges this illustration was false—Google routinely traded on inside info together with header-bidding bids entered in its advert server.

The criticism additionally alleges common-law fraud, stating Google falsely represented that varied options would serve The Atlantic’s pursuits when Google knew internally these options primarily benefited the corporate at publishers’ expense. The Atlantic relied on these misrepresentations when deciding which merchandise to undertake and how you can design its public sale methods.

Broader context of advert tech monopolization

The Atlantic’s lawsuit follows similar actions by other major publishers, together with Dotdash Meredith (which filed in August 2025), and advert exchanges together with OpenX, PubMatic, Magnite, Index Alternate, and Raptive. All these circumstances construct on Choose Brinkema’s April 2025 legal responsibility discovering within the Division of Justice’s antitrust case in opposition to Google.

A federal court ruling in October 2025 granted partial abstract judgment to non-public plaintiffs, establishing that Google is precluded from relitigating whether or not its conduct unlawfully monopolized advert tech markets. Publishers can now proceed on to proving damages with out having to re-establish legal responsibility.

The scope of potential monetary publicity extends nicely past any particular person writer. In accordance with the criticism, greater than 90% of publishers that use a writer advert server have been harmed by Google’s misleading practices. When treble damages provisions below federal antitrust regulation are utilized to Google’s promoting expertise revenues over the monopolization interval, cumulative monetary publicity throughout personal litigation may attain tens of billions of {dollars}.

Google concurrently faces European Commission antitrust proceedings where regulators imposed a €2.95 billion fine in September 2025 and ordered structural cures requiring asset divestiture. European Competitors Commissioner Margrethe Vestager defined the necessity for such cures by noting Google’s sample of conduct: “Every time a follow was detected by the business, Google subtly modified its behaviour in order to make it harder to detect, however with the identical targets, with the identical results.”

Judge Brinkema is expected to rule on remedies in the DOJ case in early 2026, with the federal government searching for pressured divestiture of Google’s advert alternate and open-sourcing of its writer advert server’s public sale logic. Google has proposed behavioral cures as an alternative, arguing divestiture would trigger enterprise disruption and hurt clients.

Implications for journalism and digital promoting

The Atlantic’s criticism emphasizes how Google’s conduct straight threatens the manufacturing of high quality journalism. By artificially miserable advert income, Google decreased the publication’s skill to put money into the greater than 200 editorial workers who produce deeply reported protection of great political and social points.

“Offering such a broad vary of high-quality information, info, and associated content material to that enormous and assorted viewers requires huge funding in human expertise, expertise, and infrastructure,” the criticism states. Digital promoting income funds this funding, making Google’s systematic underpayment a direct menace to The Atlantic’s journalistic mission.

The lawsuit arrives as publishers face mounting challenges from generative AI merchandise that additional threaten site visitors and income. Whereas The Atlantic’s editorial workforce focuses on advert tech monopolization, company management has individually negotiated content material licensing offers with AI firms—highlighting the a number of fronts on which publishers should now defend their enterprise fashions.

The Atlantic seeks treble damages below federal antitrust regulation, punitive damages, restitution, and injunctive reduction to revive competitors in advert tech markets. The publication calls for a jury trial for all points so triable.

In an announcement offered to The Atlantic’s editorial workforce for his or her protection, Google mentioned: “These allegations are meritless. Advertisers and publishers have many decisions and after they select Google’s advert tech instruments it is as a result of they’re efficient, inexpensive and straightforward to make use of.”

Timeline

Abstract

Who: The Atlantic Month-to-month Group, a 168-year-old publication with 14 million month-to-month distinctive guests, filed swimsuit in opposition to Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. Choose Leonie Brinkema beforehand dominated on the underlying antitrust violations in litigation introduced by the U.S. Division of Justice and 17 states.

What: A complete 94-page antitrust criticism alleging Google monopolized writer advert server and advert alternate markets by means of systematic manipulation together with illegal tying preparations, insider buying and selling benefits known as Final Look and Minimal Bid to Win, public sale rigging through Undertaking Bernanke and its successor Alchemist, Dynamic Income Share manipulation, Enhanced Dynamic Allocation interference with direct offers, and elimination of aggressive safeguards by means of Unified Pricing Guidelines. The lawsuit seeks financial damages together with treble damages, punitive damages, and injunctive reduction.

When: Filed January 13, 2026, following Choose Brinkema’s April 17, 2025 ruling that Google violated Sections 1 and a couple of of the Sherman Act. The alleged anticompetitive conduct spans from 2008 by means of the current, with varied schemes applied between 2013 and as we speak persevering with to hurt publishers.

The place: Filed within the U.S. District Court docket for the Southern District of New York as Case No. 1:26-cv-00272. The related markets are worldwide for each writer advert servers and advert exchanges, excluding nations with authorities web censorship or topic to U.S. financial sanctions. The Atlantic maintains its largest workplace in New York with over 170 workers.

Why: The lawsuit issues as a result of it represents a significant writer’s effort to get well damages from greater than a decade of alleged monopolistic conduct that artificially depressed promoting revenues and decreased funding in high quality journalism. Google’s management of greater than 90% of the writer advert server market and 60-70% of the advert alternate market created structural conflicts of curiosity that the corporate allegedly exploited by means of secret manipulation applications. The case builds on established antitrust legal responsibility and will lead to billions in damages throughout the publishing business, whereas highlighting how digital promoting monopolization straight threatens impartial journalism’s monetary sustainability.


Share this text


The hyperlink has been copied!




Source link