OpenX is leaving here with something.
The independent SSP has filed a civil lawsuit against Google, claiming the tech giant repeatedly used its dominance to “rig the rules” of the digital ad market and block rivals from gaining traction. According to the complaint, OpenX says Google’s control over publisher ad serving and exchanges allowed it to steer demand, manipulate auctions, and shut out alternative solutions—causing “significant damage” to OpenX and leaving the broader market worse off.
This civil case follows a landmark decision in the federal DOJ’s antitrust suit against Google, where Judge Brinkema ruled in March that Google had illegally monopolized two key areas of adtech: the market for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges. OpenX’s lawsuit follows that ruling, but seeks damages for what it describes as years of suppressed innovation and lost opportunity.
Why This Matters:
Well, yeah, it’s a big deal. Frankly, the implications go well beyond OpenX as this marks one of the first major adtech players to file a follow-on civil suit after the DOJ’s antitrust victory. Could it open the floodgates? If OpenX succeeds, for example, will it encourage a wave of litigation from other companies that feel they too were pushed aside by Google’s dominance.
The complaint digs into longstanding concerns across the adtech ecosystem: that even companies with technically superior or more efficient offerings struggle to compete due to structural advantages Google maintains across the ad stack. In OpenX’s case, it claims Google retaliated against innovations that brought more transparency or better outcomes for publishers and buyers, undermining the very idea of a competitive market.
Experts React:
OpenX’s complaint frames the company as a challenger repeatedly undercut by Google’s structural advantages. From the filing:
“OpenX, an innovative independent digital advertising platform that attempted to introduce competition in the industry, was continually thwarted by Google’s conduct. OpenX introduced products and services that made sales of digital advertising more efficient by improving the market’s ability to value individual ad spaces, optimizing outcomes for both buyers and sellers. Each time OpenX did so, Google used its dominance to rig the rules by which digital advertising is bought and sold, to the detriment of OpenX and the entire industry. Google’s conduct has stifled innovation, harmed competition, decreased product quality and caused significant damage to OpenX, as well as to Google’s own publisher and advertiser customers.”
Here are some of the more interesting posts on X from the adtech community about the decision:
Our Take:
OpenX’s move makes sense, of course. The company spent years trying to operate within an ecosystem where Google basically set the rules and ran the table. With the DOJ verdict as precedent, the door is now open for others to seek accountability.
We actually wonder: why haven’t more adtech firms filing similar suits? The answer likely comes down to three factors—cost, risk, and dependence. Legal battles against a company like Google can drag on for years and cost millions. Many adtech firms are still dependent on Google in some part of their supply chain, making retaliation a real concern. And for some, the prospect of a settlement or acquisition may feel more strategic than a public courtroom fight. That may change if OpenX gains traction—and damages. We’ll see.
P.S., other currently involved in sort of similar civil suits against Google include Rumble and Gannett.
