Raptive, an advertising-sales company representing thousands of websites (content publishers), filed a 93-page complaint against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit says "Google has carried out a sophisticated, anticompetitive, and deceptive scheme for well over a decade" by "manipulating auctions for ad space across the Internet."

Raptive alleges that Google has illegally monopolized the digital advertising market for over a decade through a series of systematic, anticompetitive, and deceptive schemes. Raptive alleges Google systematically rigged ad auctions by leveraging its multiple roles in the ad-tech stack (as a publisher ad server, an ad exchange, and an advertiser buying tool). The complaint claims Google traded on inside information to depress the prices paid to publishers, notably through programs like "Project Bernanke" and "Minimum Bid to Win," which gave its own ad exchange an unfair advantage over rivals.

Google allegedly tied its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), to its ad exchange, AdX, effectively forcing publishers to use DFP to access real-time bids on AdX and locking out competing ad servers. The complaint focuses on Google's use of Enhanced Dynamic Allocation (EDA), which forced publishers to make all inventory available to AdX. Google would then allegedly convert prices from a publisher's direct deals into artificially low "temporary" cost-per-mille (CPM) floors, allowing AdX to win impressions for just one penny above that artificially depressed price. The lawsuit alleges Google concealed its anti-competitive actions from publishers and misrepresented that it did not use confidential publisher data (such as rival bids entered into DFP) to inform its own bidding. Internal communications allegedly warned against disclosing these proprietary programs.

Raptive seeks substantial monetary damages, running into the billions of dollars. Under federal antitrust law (the Clayton Act), successful plaintiffs can be awarded treble damages (three times the actual damages suffered) for willful monopolization. The suit also seeks punitive damages for the common-law fraud claims.

Raptive v. Google -> "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'... https://t.co/jmpmd034D3

'" Glenn Gabe (@glenngabe) November 1, 2025

1. Raptive suing Google is a HUGE deal for small publishers harmed by Google's monopoly

2. Justice will take time, but this case should move quicker than most because Raptive can rely on Judge Brinkema's findings of fact regarding Google's conduct https://t.co/dNF50rYKrB

'" Nate Hake (@natejhake) November 1, 2025

Will Raptive win? I don't know. More likely a settlement if anything...

Forum discussion at X.

Both Google and Microsoft reported its earnings today; Alphabet's Q3 2025 earnings and Microsoft's Q1 2026 earnings. Google reported ad revenues up by 13% with $74 billion and Microsoft reported ad revenues up by 16%. Google's overall revenue was up 16% at $102.3 billion, which is their largest revenue quarter of all time. Microsoft's overall revenue was up 18% at $77.7 billion.

I like to dig in specifically on the ad revenues but both companies performed very well.

GOOG Earnings

Google reported Q2 2025 earnings today, which showed Google's ad revenue was up again year-over-year, with an increase of 13%, and overall revenue is also up 16%.

If you want to compare Q2 2025 to Q1 2025, you will see ad revenue was up 4%, overall revenue was up 6.2% and profit was flat%.

Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, said:

Alphabet had a terrific quarter, with double-digit growth across every major part of our business. We delivered our first-ever $100 billion quarter.

Here is a chart plotting Google's overall revenue, then ad revenue and then profit over the past several quarters:

Here is the snippet from the earnings report:

Highlights from Google earnings:

• Revenue: $102.35 billion vs. $99.89 billion adj. estimated
• Earnings per share: $2.87 not immediately comparable
• YouTube advertising revenue: $10.26 billion vs. $10.01 billion
• Google Cloud revenue: $15.15 billion vs. $14.74 billion
• Traffic acquisition costs (TAC): $14.87 billion vs. $14.82 billion

Just posted Q3 earnings. We delivered our first-ever $100B quarter driven by double-digit growth across every major part of our business. (Five years ago, our quarterly revenue was at $50Bð)

Our full-stack approach to AI is driving real momentum and we're shipping at speed.'... pic.twitter.com/L4Yz1iUuyT

'" Sundar Pichai (@sundarpichai) October 29, 2025

Google posted an earnings statement saying with Search, "AI Overviews drive meaningful query growth" and that AI Mode saw "queries doubled over the quarter." Adding with AI Mode Google "shipped over 100 improvements to the product in Q3" and realized "incremental total query growth for Search" through AI Mode.

Microsoft Earnings

Microsoft reported its first quarter 2026 earnings and it showed that its search and advertising revenue was up for 16% but down from the three-peat of up by 21%. The previous two quarters it was up 21% as well, then the quarter before that was up 18%, then 19% but before that it was 12% and 8%.

Microsoft wrote, "Search and news advertising revenue excluding traffic acquisition costs increased 16% (up 15% in constant currency)."

Here are the highlights of the financial report:

• Revenue was $77.7 billion and increased 18% (up 17% in constant currency)
• Operating income was $38.0 billion and increased 24% (up 22% in constant currency)
• Net income, on a GAAP basis, was $27.7 billion and increased 12%, and on a non-GAAP basis was $30.8 billion and increased 22% (up 21% in constant currency)
• Diluted earnings per share, on a GAAP basis, was $3.72 and increased 13%, and on a non-GAAP basis was $4.13 and increased 23% (up 21% in constant currency)
• Non-GAAP results exclude the impact from investments in OpenAI, explained in the Non-GAAP Definition section below

Here is how the advertising revenue chart looks specific to search and news advertising revenue increases quarter to quarter (over):

Satya Nadella, Microsoft's CEO, said:

'Our planet-scale cloud and AI factory, together with Copilots across high value domains, is driving broad diffusion and real-world impact," said Satya Nadella, chairman and chief executive officer of Microsoft. 'It's why we continue to increase our investments in AI across both capital and talent to meet the massive opportunity ahead.'

2/ We're building a planet-scale cloud and AI factory.

We'll increase our AI capacity by 80% this year, and nearly double our DC footprint over the next two.

That includes Fairwater in Wisconsin, the world's most powerful AI datacenter, which will scale to two gigawatts alone.'...

— Satya Nadella (@satyanadella) October 29, 2025

4/ And this week, we signed a new agreement with OpenAI, a milestone for both companies.

It's been an incredible investment, with nearly 10X return and no carry. All the value goes straight to shareholders.

Another thing I feel super proud about is that Microsoft is now behind'...

— Satya Nadella (@satyanadella) October 29, 2025

In the Microsoft earnings call the executives said, "In Bing, our overview pages now include embedded conversational capabilities. We took share again in search."

Forum discussion at X.

A judge has ruled, giving Google a blow in its ad tech monopoly legal battle. This ruling should help the plaintiffs suing Google not get hung up in court as long as some expected, plus Google can't relitgate the core facts in that antitrust case. This is seperate from the soft ruling of the first part of the Google monopoly ruling.

The court documents are over here and it says:

Moving Plaintiffs assert that Google is foreclosed from relitigating substantially identical issues that were actually and necessarily decided in the E.D. Va. Action under principles of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel. Google opposes these motions on various grounds. For reasons that will be explained, the motions will be granted to the extent indicated and otherwise denied.

This seems to mean, I am no lawyer, that the core issue is whether a prior victory the U.S. government won against Google in a Virginia court (the E.D. Va. Action) can be used as a shortcut by all the other private companies and individuals suing Google in New York. The judge essentially said "Yes, for many of the key facts, Google already lost, so it can't argue them again." This is called "issue preclusion" or collateral estoppel.

The judge ruled that Google must accept the following facts as true in the New York cases, because they were already proven in the Virginia trial:

(1) The Market is Defined:

• The Products: There are two distinct markets in the ad world: publisher ad servers (software publishers use to manage ad space) and ad exchanges (the auction houses where buyers bid on the ad space).
• The Scope: These markets are worldwide (excluding countries like China or Iran with restricted internet access).

(2) Google's Actions Were Illegal:

The judge agreed that Google must accept the finding that it engaged in actions that were designed to protect and maintain its dominant position, which violates antitrust law. These actions include:

• Unlawful Tying: Forcing publishers to use Google's ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers or DFP) if they wanted to use Google's ad exchange (AdX). This is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
• Specific Anti-Competitive Practices: Google is legally bound by the finding that the following four practices were illegal ways to protect its monopoly: (A) First Look, (B) Last Look, (C) Dynamic Revenue Share and (D) Unified Pricing Rules.

The plaintiffs still have to prove two things:

(1) Antitrust Injury: That Google's illegal actions specifically harmed them.

(2) Damages: How much money Google's actions cost them

Here is Jason's Kint summary of this, which is way better than I posted above:

Judge Castel: 'Judge Brinkema's findings of fact and conclusions of law are precise and concise.'
Her three-week trial & 115-page opinion are 'far from tentative,' and Google had a 'full and fair opportunity to litigate.' Google cannot reargue liability. /2 pic.twitter.com/FzE3UqOQF8

'" Jason Kint (@jason_kint) October 28, 2025

Importantly, Judge Castel fully adopted Brinkema's worldwide market definition for ad servers & ad exchanges. Google's dominance - over 90% share in ad serving - is legally established for all of these other privacy cases. And European Commission should note this, too. /4

'" Jason Kint (@jason_kint) October 28, 2025

Bottom line:
- DOJ's win in EDVA is now the foundation for private damages cases.
- Google is barred from relitigating liability.
- As previously noted, 'a precise and concise' opinion by Judge Brinkema now echoes through the Southern District of New York. BAM! /6

'" Jason Kint (@jason_kint) October 28, 2025

And EDTX has now been alerted, too, for the State of Texas ++ case against Google which has significantly more additional claims, including deceptive action (and Jedi Blue) in it than DOJ had in EDVA... /8 pic.twitter.com/dELwnUR7T3

'" Jason Kint (@jason_kint) October 28, 2025

Forum discussion at X.

The post Manual Actions and Site Reputation Abuse appeared first on Nikki Halliwell.