Raptive sues Google for ad tech monopolization seeking billions in damages

CMI Marketing, Inc., operating as Raptive, filed a comprehensive antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. on October 17, 2025, alleging the tech giant illegally monopolized digital advertising markets through systematic manipulation of ad auctions. The complaint, submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as Case No. 1:25-cv-08630, seeks substantial damages and injunctive relief following a federal court's April 2025 determination that Google violated antitrust laws.

According to the 93-page filing, Raptive contends that "Google has carried out a sophisticated, anticompetitive, and deceptive scheme for well over a decade" by "manipulating auctions for ad space across the Internet." The New York-based company manages advertising sales for more than 6,000 websites, selling nearly one billion ad impressions daily to fund content creators across the United States.

The lawsuit builds directly on Judge Leonie Brinkema's April 17, 2025 ruling in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the court found Google "willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open web advertising." Judge Brinkema specifically held that "this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers."

Market dominance through acquisition and manipulation

Google achieved its dominant position primarily through strategic acquisitions rather than organic development. The company purchased DoubleClick in 2008 for $3.1 billion, obtaining the market's leading publisher ad server and a nascent ad exchange. By 2012, approximately 85% of publishers in the United States licensed Google's ad server, a figure that grew to more than 90% by 2015.

Raptive's complaint identifies Google's publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), as controlling over 90% of the publisher ad server market. Google's exchange, DoubleClick Ad Exchange (AdX), commands over 60% to 70% of the exchange market. Most of Google's exchange rivals maintain market shares in the single digits.

The filing alleges Google tied its ad exchange to its publisher ad server, forcing publishers to use DFP to access AdX's real-time bids. "Google is a monopolist in the relevant publisher-ad-serving market," the complaint states, noting that "most ad-serving rivals have exited the market, and any new entrant simultaneously would have to provide a similarly powerful ad exchange."

Inside information and auction rigging

Central to Raptive's allegations are claims that Google systematically traded on inside information to manipulate ad auctions. The complaint describes multiple schemes Google allegedly employed to depress prices paid to publishers while increasing its market share.

"Last Look" permitted AdX to view competing bids from header bidding before submitting its own bid, allowing Google to win impressions by bidding just one penny higher than rivals. The Eastern District of Virginia found that "being able to view its competitors' bids provided Google and its advertising customers with a significant informational advantage that significantly disadvantaged other competitors in the ad exchange space."

When AdX moved to a first-price auction in 2019, Google replaced Last Look with "Minimum Bid to Win," which provides functionally identical information. After each auction concludes, DFP tells the winning bidder the second-highest price placed in the auction. Google then uses this data to predict and narrowly outbid competitors in future similar auctions.

Project Bernanke, launched in 2013, represents another scheme identified in the complaint. Google allegedly manipulated bids that Google Ads submitted to AdX auctions, deflating the second-highest bid while inflating the highest bid. This generated a "pool" of funds that Google used to beat rival exchanges in other auctions, even when doing so resulted in losses. The complaint notes that "in 2022 alone, Google made $30 billion from manipulating auctions for ad space across the Internet."

"Dynamic Revenue Share" allowed AdX to adjust its 20% revenue share on specific impressions to win auctions against competitors, then make up the shortfall by charging higher fees on less competitive impressions. Google maintained an average 20% take rate while selectively dropping rates to win valuable inventory.

Enhanced Dynamic Allocation and direct deal interference

The complaint describes how "Enhanced Dynamic Allocation" forced publishers to make every impression available for sale through AdX, even inventory previously reserved for direct deals with advertisers. Google converts direct deals into "temporary" CPMs that often bear no relationship to the negotiated price, then allows AdX to win impressions for one penny above this artificially low floor.

"Google never has given publishers insight into how DFP calculates the temporary CPM it sends as a price floor," the complaint states. Publishers cannot verify whether the temporary CPM understates the value of their direct deals for particular impressions.

When Raptive and other publishers attempted to counteract Google's advantages by setting differential price floors for different exchanges or demand-side platforms, Google implemented "Unified Pricing Rules" in 2019 that eliminated this capability. The filing notes that Google justified UPR by claiming it would "establish a level playing field for advertisers" and "increase publisher revenue," but internal documents revealed Google implemented the rules to restrict publishers' ability to maintain revenue diversity.

Deceptive practices and contractual violations

Beyond antitrust violations, Raptive alleges Google engaged in systematic deception. The complaint states that "for years, in its DFP agreements, Google has represented to Raptive that it does not use 'data entered by [publishers] . . . that is not generally shared with buyers' — including header-bidding bids entered as line items in DFP — 'for purposes of informing bids' made by Google."

Google also publicly represented that AdX ran a "sealed bid second-price auction" from 2010 to 2019, when internal documents show the company was secretly running manipulated auctions through Project Bernanke and other programs. After transitioning to a purportedly "fair" and "transparent" first-price auction, Google continued manipulating bids through "Alchemist," the first-price version of Bernanke.

The filing alleges Google deliberately concealed these programs from publishers. Internal communications showed Google employees warned against disclosing Project Bernanke, with one employee noting "the first rule of Bernanke is we don't talk about Bernanke." Google also withheld auction data that publishers might have used to uncover the rigged bidding.

Impact on publishers and content creation

Raptive serves as the exclusive advertising seller for websites whose creators rely on digital advertising as "the lifeblood of their businesses." The company handles all aspects of digital advertising for its creators, from licensing ad tech tools to designing ad placements and creating advertising strategies.

Without the revenue from ad sales, the complaint explains, "those creators would find it exceedingly difficult to monetize their creative endeavors." Raptive's ad sales "provide critical income and revenue for thousands of American households and businesses and support engaging online content viewed by millions of readers in this country and abroad."

The filing contends that but for Google's conduct, there would be more impressions generated and greater output in the ad-serving and exchange markets. Advertisers would have more quality ad space for placing ads, and users would see more relevant advertisements. Publishers like Raptive would earn higher revenue, which would be invested to create more content and grow audiences.

Legal claims and relief sought

Raptive brings seven counts against Google: monopolization of the publisher ad server market, monopolization of the ad exchange market, attempted monopolization of the ad exchange market, unlawful tying, deceptive acts or practices under New York General Business Law, common-law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The complaint seeks monetary damages, treble damages under federal antitrust law, punitive damages, and injunctive relief to restore competition in monopolized markets. Under the Clayton Act, courts can multiply actual damages by three in antitrust cases involving willful monopolization.

"As a result of Google's unlawful conduct, Raptive has suffered, and continues to suffer, monetary harm in an amount to be proved at trial," the complaint states. The filing demands a jury trial for all applicable issues.

Growing wave of private litigation

Raptive's lawsuit represents the latest in a series of private antitrust actions filed against Google following the April 2025 liability ruling. OpenX Technologies filed suit on August 4, 2025, seeking damages for conduct that forced the company to shut down its ad server business. PubMatic filed its complaint on September 8, 2025, with expected damages reaching billions when trebled. Magnite joined the litigation on September 16, 2025.

On October 27, 2025, the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to multiple private plaintiffs, ruling that findings from the Eastern District of Virginia establishing Google's monopolization would have binding effect in private litigation. This procedural victory allows publishers to proceed directly to damages phases without having to reprove that Google broke the law.

Significance for digital advertising ecosystem

The lawsuit arrives as courts determine appropriate remedies for Google's proven violations. The Department of Justice has proposed breaking up Google's ad tech business, seeking divestiture of Google Ad Manager and AdX along with behavioral restrictions. Google counters that behavioral remedies would address competitive concerns without dismantling its products.

International regulators have also taken action. In September 2025, the European Commission fined Google nearly €3 billion and ordered the company to "bring these self-preferencing practices to an end" and "implement measures to cease its inherent conflicts of interest."

The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority identified Google's misconduct and harm to publishers but concluded it had insufficient injunctive authority to implement remedies. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that "Google has engaged in self-preferencing conduct" and proposed various measures to address problematic practices.

For the marketing community, these developments signal a potential restructuring of digital advertising infrastructure that has remained largely unchanged since Google's DoubleClick acquisition in 2008. Industry participants have debatedwhether structural separation or regulated behavioral restrictions would better restore competition to markets where Google currently controls over 90% of ad serving and 60% to 70% of exchanges.

The stakes extend beyond immediate market participants. Digital advertising represents a $200 billion business that funds free content across the internet. Reduced competition in ad tech markets means lower revenue for publishers, which constrains investment in journalism, entertainment, and other content that consumers access without paywalls.

Timeline

• 2008: Google acquires DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, obtaining dominant publisher ad server and ad exchange
• 2011: Google acquires Admeld, a yield management tool that helped publishers optimize ad network decisions
• 2013: Google launches Project Bernanke to manipulate bids and build slush fund for winning auctions against rivals
• 2014: Google introduces Enhanced Dynamic Allocation, forcing publishers to make all inventory available to AdX
• 2014: Dynamic Revenue Share allows AdX to selectively adjust take rates to win specific impressions
• 2018: Google rebrands DFP and AdX as single offering "Google Ad Manager," tying products contractually
• 2019: Google implements Unified Pricing Rules, eliminating publishers' ability to set differential price floors
• 2019: Google moves AdX to first-price auction but continues manipulation through "Alchemist" and Minimum Bid to Win
• January 24, 2023: United States Department of Justice and eight states file antitrust lawsuit against Google
• September 2024: Three-week bench trial concludes with 39 live witnesses and 20 deposition testimonies
• April 17, 2025: Judge Brinkema issues 115-page ruling finding Google liable for monopolization and unlawful tying
• May 5, 2025: Parties submit competing remedy proposals in Virginia case
• August 4, 2025: OpenX Technologies files follow-on antitrust lawsuit
• September 8, 2025: PubMatic files antitrust lawsuit in Eastern District of Virginia
• September 16, 2025: Magnite files comprehensive antitrust complaint
• October 17, 2025: Raptive files lawsuit as Case No. 1:25-cv-08630 in Southern District of New York
• October 27, 2025: Southern District of New York grants summary judgment, binding Google to Virginia court findings

Summary

Who: CMI Marketing, Inc., operating as Raptive, a New York-based creator media company that manages advertising sales for more than 6,000 websites, filed the lawsuit against Google LLC and Alphabet Inc. Raptive serves as the exclusive seller of advertising inventory for content creators ranging from individual bloggers to major corporations.

What: A 93-page antitrust complaint alleging Google illegally monopolized publisher ad server and ad exchange markets through systematic manipulation including unlawful tying arrangements, trading on inside information through Last Look and Minimum Bid to Win, auction rigging via Project Bernanke and Alchemist, manipulation of revenue shares through Dynamic Revenue Share, interference with direct deals via Enhanced Dynamic Allocation, and elimination of competitive safeguards through Unified Pricing Rules. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, treble damages under federal antitrust law, punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

When: Filed on October 17, 2025, as Case No. 1:25-cv-08630, following Judge Leonie Brinkema's April 17, 2025 ruling in the Eastern District of Virginia that found Google violated antitrust laws. The alleged anticompetitive conduct spans over a decade, with various schemes implemented between 2008 and the present. Raptive was not fully aware of many secret programs until January 14, 2022, when the third amended complaint in the Texas case was unsealed.

Where: Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Google maintains offices and where much of Raptive's advertising operations staff is based. The relevant markets are worldwide in scope, excluding countries with government internet censorship or subject to United States economic sanctions. Google has acknowledged that much of its ad tech business is located in New York.

Why: Raptive alleges Google's conduct caused substantial financial harm by depressing prices paid for advertising inventory, reducing competition among exchanges, and limiting publishers' ability to maximize revenue. The lawsuit matters for the marketing community because it targets practices affecting the $200 billion digital advertising ecosystem that funds free content across the internet. Google's control over more than 90% of publisher ad serving and 60% to 70% of ad exchanges means its conduct impacts virtually every publisher using programmatic advertising. The case could lead to structural changes in ad tech markets and potentially restore competition that would benefit publishers, advertisers, and consumers. For Raptive specifically, higher advertising revenue would enable its creators to invest more in quality content, grow their audiences, and generate more ad impressions for sale.