By Ronan Shields  •  August 6, 2025  •

The complaint alleges that Google, through a series of acquisitions, namely DoubleClick, and self-preferencing practices, established dominant positions across the ad tech stack — controlling the tools advertisers use to buy ads, the ad exchange that brokers them and the ad server publishers use to sell them.

OpenX claims that this integration enabled Google to restrict competition by tying access to its advertiser demand via Google Ads exclusively to its exchange, AdX, and then requiring publishers to use its ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, to access that exchange. The lawsuit further alleges that Google manipulated auctions in favor of its own platforms, undermining rival exchanges, such as OpenX, and responded to initiatives from the independent sector, such as header bidding, by deploying internal countermeasures, i.e., Project Poirot.

Subsequently, OpenX is now seeking damages (the dollar figure was not detailed in the legal filing) and injunctive relief, asserting that Google directly harmed its business and distorted fair competition with federal antitrust law violations.

Digiday spoke with OpenX CEO John Gentry to gauge the rationale behind the case. 

The conversation below has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity. 

How long has OpenX been preparing the latest antitrust case, and was there any specific catalyst for filing the antitrust claims against Google? 

It’s been going on for months, mostly prompted by what we were tracking with the DOJ, and we came to the conclusion that we want to move forward.

It was not solely tied to the [April 2025] guilty verdict against Google, but that obviously contributed to the decision; there was a lot more behind it. Our goal is twofold: one is to recover the damages for the harm that was done to the company over the years, and two, we’d really like to see a judgment that leads to fair competition in the marketplace, which means that Google is not doing these things going forward. 

What parts of Google’s conduct have caused the most direct financial harm to OpenX, and can you quantify that?

They also rigged programmatic auctions… they literally set up the auction in a way that, because they had control of the ad server, they could look at the bids from OpenX, and then modify their own bids, after what they had seen in the auction. That’s extraordinarily difficult for us to compete with, and has the effect of taking so many transactions away from other SSPs, because they have the ability to decide how the auction should close. 

Also, what they did in terms of publishers’ auction floor prices. Many had a method where they put out a higher floor-price for AdX than they would for other SSPs. This allowed publishers to get their money from a more widely distributed marketplace, and not to be so dependent on AdX. But what Google did was to mandate that publishers could not set different floors for different SSPs, you’d have one floor across them all. That’s something that really restricted competitive SSPs like OpenX from being able to win impressions. 

It all depends on how it occurs, and the terms… there’s a lot you can do to nullify the effects of what looks like a change in the marketplace. So that’s very hard to predict, but the hope would be that if you break up Google and its control of the marketplace, it would enable all of us to compete fairly. 

In your accompanying blog post, you made reference to OpenX’s relationship with Google. How is that likely to continue going forward, with this ongoing case?

This is a very thoughtful process; we wanted to be very thorough, so we didn’t talk to the marketplace about it. 

We still have a very significant relationship with Google, whether it be with DV 360, that’s a really important one for us, or whether it be with GAM [Google Ad Manager], we also have GCP [Google Cloud Platform], those relationships are valuable to us and we believe that those relationships are very valuable to them, those relationships should continue as business as usual. 

Editor’s note: A Google spokesperson was unable to provide comment on record by deadline, although Google’s defense team has earlier outlined its rebuttals of similar charges made by the DOJ. The timeline for any potential developments is unclear. However, the Eastern District of Virginia has a reputation for handling such cases quickly, with commentators often using the term “rocket docket” when discussing to cases in this jurisdiction.