A U.S. law firm this week launched a coordinated mass arbitration effort on behalf of American businesses that purchased Google advertising since 2016, seeking to recover what it describes as billions of dollars in overcharges resulting from anticompetitive conduct the firm says two separate federal courts have already confirmed.

Keller Postman, a Chicago-based litigation firm, announced on May 11, 2026 that it is representing thousands of U.S. businesses in individual arbitration proceedings against Google, following two landmark federal antitrust rulings that found the company engaged in monopolistic behavior across key segments of the digital advertising ecosystem. The firm is targeting companies of all sizes - from local businesses to large enterprises - that spent money on Google search or display advertising on or after August 2016.

The announcement arrives at a moment when the legal landscape around Google's advertising business has shifted markedly. Two distinct federal courts have now ruled against Google on antitrust grounds. In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google illegally maintained a monopoly in general search services and search text advertising. Then, on April 17, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a second ruling, finding that Google had willfully monopolized the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising. That second ruling, authored by Judge Leonie Brinkema, concluded that Google's conduct "substantially harmed Google's publishing customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web."

File Google Ads Arbitration Claim | Recover Substantial Ad Spend
File your Google Ads arbitration claim today. Businesses may qualify to recover up to 30% of their ad spend. See if you’re eligible for the Google Ads lawsuit.
Recover Substantial Ad Spend

The financial scale

The sums involved are substantial. According to Alphabet's public filings, U.S. businesses spent roughly $728 billion on Google search and display advertising over the past decade. Experts retained in the federal antitrust proceedings estimated that anticompetitive conduct may have significantly inflated those costs. The scale of that number sets the context for what Keller Postman describes as a potentially massive recovery opportunity.

Federal antitrust law in the United States includes a treble damages provision: a court can award up to three times the amount of proven losses. According to Keller Postman, a 10% overcharge claim would therefore translate into a potential recovery of up to 30% of the advertiser's total ad spend with Google during the relevant period. Businesses that qualify and whose claims succeed could receive $10,000 or more in compensation, according to the firm, depending on individual ad spend levels.

"This is the natural next chapter following the courts' findings," said Ashley Keller, founding partner of Keller Postman. "Federal judges have already determined that Google engaged in unlawful conduct. Millions of businesses paid for advertising in a market that was not operating competitively, and they deserve the opportunity to pursue that overcharge."

Why arbitration rather than a class action

The choice of legal vehicle here is significant and stems directly from Google's own contract terms. Google's advertiser agreements include mandatory arbitration clauses, which effectively prevent advertisers from pursuing claims through class action litigation. Because of those contractual provisions, claims must proceed through individual arbitration rather than through a consolidated class suit.

Keller Postman says it is addressing that structural obstacle through mass arbitration - a legal strategy that coordinates thousands of individual arbitration claims simultaneously, allowing each claimant to pursue recovery based on its own advertising spend while benefiting from a shared legal strategy and collective resources. This approach has been used in other high-stakes disputes against major corporations, including technology platforms.

The arbitration route carries a notable implication for public visibility. Unlike court proceedings, private arbitration unfolds outside the public record. Keller Postman acknowledged this directly, noting that because these proceedings take place in private arbitration, they have remained largely outside public awareness - even as the underlying federal cases generated extensive media coverage and legal filings.

What the courts found

Understanding the arbitration effort requires understanding the legal foundation it rests on. The two federal rulings are distinct in what they address.

The August 2024 search monopoly ruling by Judge Mehta addressed Google's dominance in the general search market and its use of exclusive distribution agreements - including a deal under which Google paid $26.3 billion in 2021 alone to remain the default search engine on Apple devices, Mozilla's Firefox browser, and Samsung smartphones. The court found that Google controls approximately 90% of the online search market overall and 95% of search on smartphones.

The April 2025 ad tech ruling by Judge Brinkema addressed a different but interconnected set of behaviors. That casefocused on Google's simultaneous control of the publisher ad server market, the ad exchange market, and its advertiser-facing network - effectively operating on all sides of digital advertising transactions at once. The court found that Google combined its ad-serving, exchange, and bidding platforms into a single system and set minimum bid thresholds that blocked competing bidders. Advertisers had no practical alternative to accepting Google's pricing.

Those auction mechanics are central to the advertiser harm theory. As PPC Land has reported, internal Google programs including "Bernanke" and "Poirot" manipulated the mechanics of advertising auctions in ways that extracted revenue from both publishers and advertisers. Project Bernanke, for instance, involved deflating the second-highest bid submitted to auctions while inflating the highest bid, allowing Google to underpay publishers while appearing to run competitive auctions. The systematic nature of that conduct across billions of individual ad auctions is precisely what Keller Postman's advertiser claims are expected to centre on.

Advertiser claims vs. publisher claims

One important distinction in the Keller Postman effort is its focus on the advertiser side of the equation. Much of the litigation activity following the April 2025 ruling has concentrated on publisher harm - the losses suffered by websites and media companies that sold advertising inventory through Google's platforms. Publishers including PubMatic, Index Exchange, and The Atlantic have all filed separate lawsuits making this argument.

Keller Postman says advertiser claims represent a significantly larger portion of the digital advertising market than publisher-side litigation has addressed so far. Businesses that bought Google search or display advertising - not the websites that hosted those ads - are the intended beneficiaries of this arbitration effort. That distinction matters for calculating potential recovery, since total U.S. advertiser spending on Google over the past decade runs into the hundreds of billions.

The legal pathway for advertiser claims was partly clarified in October 2025, when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment to multiple private plaintiffs, including advertisers, allowing established antitrust findings from the Virginia case to have binding effect in subsequent private litigation. That ruling accelerated the schedule for damages proceedings by preventing Google from re-litigating monopoly findings already established in the Brinkema ruling.

Keller Postman's previous Google work

Keller Postman is not new to litigation against Google. According to the firm's published case history, it filed a class action against Google in March 2022 over alleged deceptive online ordering practices affecting restaurant owners. Before that, the firm was retained by the State of Texas in December 2020 to bring antitrust litigation against Google, and its attorneys were involved in related Texas proceedings in February 2021.

Managing partner Warren Postman leads what the firm describes as one of the most active mass arbitration practices in the United States. According to the firm, it has delivered settlements for more than 500,000 clients in just the past two years, across consumer and employment disputes. Ashley Keller, the founding partner and a former appellate lawyer, focuses on complex product-liability, antitrust, class action, and arbitration matters. Both partners are listed as having been involved in the firm's advertising-related work against Google.

Context: a wave of private litigation

The Keller Postman announcement is the latest in an accelerating wave of private antitrust litigation against Google that has built since the April 2025 ruling. Law firms began recruiting advertisers as early as October 2025, promising potential refunds of up to 30% on advertising expenditures since 2016. At the time, the outreach attracted attention among e-commerce executives, with social media posts describing an aggressive legal recruitment effort targeting brands across sectors.

The private litigation picture grew more complex in October 2025 when the New York federal court's collateral estoppel ruling created a legal shortcut: plaintiffs in private suits could now rely on established monopoly findings from the Virginia case without having to prove Google's liability from scratch. For advertisers, this substantially reduces the cost and complexity of pursuing individual claims.

Meanwhile, the remedies phase of the government's ad tech case has proceeded on a separate track. Both the Department of Justice and Google filed competing remedies proposals in November 2025, with the government seeking forced divestiture of Google's AdX exchange and publisher ad server, while Google argued that behavioral changes - including opening its exchange to rival ad servers - would suffice. Google concluded its advertising technology remedies trial on November 21, 2025, with technical testimony describing the complexity of separating Google's integrated advertising tools. A court ruling on remedies in that case remains pending.

On the search side, Google filed an appeal in January 2026 seeking to pause data-sharing mandates imposed by the September 2025 remedies ruling in the Mehta case, adding further legal uncertainty to the regulatory picture.

What businesses need to know about eligibility

According to Keller Postman, any company that purchased ads on Google on or after August 2016 may qualify for the arbitration process. The threshold is broad by design. The firm says it will represent businesses of all sizes, with no upfront cost, working instead on a contingency fee basis in which fees are only collected if compensation is secured. The firm's published guidance states that the process of submitting a claim estimate takes approximately 50 seconds and requires an estimate of total Google ad spend since 2016.

The firm cautions that deadlines vary by state, and that earlier action increases the probability of a successful claim being filed within applicable statutes of limitations. That temporal pressure reflects a genuine legal complexity: antitrust claims in the United States are subject to a four-year statute of limitations under the Clayton Act, though the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment doctrine can extend that period in certain circumstances.

Calculating actual damages in these proceedings will require economic analysis. Claimants must demonstrate they paid higher prices than they would have in a competitive market - a counterfactual assessment that requires expert economic modelling of what auction-clearing prices would have looked like in the absence of Google's bid manipulation practices.

Why this matters for marketing professionals

For the marketing community, the emergence of mass arbitration as a legal tool in the Google antitrust context marks a notable development. Regulatory proceedings and publisher-side lawsuits have attracted substantial coverage. But the advertiser-side financial exposure - the $728 billion figure cited in Alphabet's own filings - represents the actual budget that marketers and business owners committed to Google's platforms over the past decade.

PPC Land has tracked this legal landscape closely since the first antitrust findings. The breadth of affected parties is significant: Google search advertising is used by businesses across every industry, from small local firms running a few hundred dollars a month in ads to large enterprises spending tens of millions annually. The arbitration effort potentially reaches all of them. The outcome will depend on the strength of economic evidence, the responsiveness of arbitration forums to mass filings of this type, and Google's legal strategy in responding to thousands of simultaneous individual claims.

Timeline

Summary

Who: Keller Postman LLC, a Chicago-based litigation firm with offices at 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100, representing thousands of U.S. businesses of all sizes that purchased Google advertising.

What: A coordinated mass arbitration effort seeking financial recovery for alleged advertising overcharges by Google, based on two federal antitrust rulings. The firm is pursuing individual arbitration claims on behalf of each business, coordinated at scale. Potential recovery is estimated at up to 30% of total Google ad spend, with treble damages available under federal antitrust law.

When: The announcement was made on May 11, 2026. The eligible period for claims covers Google advertising purchases made from August 2016 onward. The underlying federal antitrust rulings were issued in August 2024 and April 2025.

Where: Claims are proceeding through private individual arbitration in the United States, a route dictated by mandatory arbitration clauses in Google's advertiser agreements. The underlying federal cases were litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (search monopoly) and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (ad tech monopoly).

Why: Two separate federal courts found that Google engaged in anticompetitive conduct that artificially inflated advertising prices. The search case found Google illegally maintained its monopoly through exclusive distribution agreements. The ad tech case found Google unlawfully controlled the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets simultaneously, setting minimum bid thresholds and manipulating auction mechanics in ways that prevented fair competition. Keller Postman argues that the businesses which paid for advertising in those markets are entitled to recover the overcharge.

Share this article
The link has been copied!