If you have blamed rising Google Ads costs on Quality Score or tougher competition, the search antitrust record points somewhere else: auction changes Google never announced.
A sponsored legal analysis published by Silver Arbitration Law walks advertisers through the August 2024 ruling that Google “has exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads.”
The auction changes behind the CPC creep
The trial record showed internal levers changed what a winning ad paid without any change in bids, ad quality or competition, mostly by inflating the runner-up score used to set the winner’s CPC.
- Format pricing (2012–2019): sitelinks, callouts and structured snippets paid more to keep position; by 2019 that generated about 15% of text ad revenue.
- Squashing (2014 onward): Google raised predicted click-through rate for every ad except the leader, which lifted the winner’s price.
- rGSP (2019 onward): Google multiplies the runner-up score by an adjustable factor. Projected effect: a 5–6% CPC increase on top slots, with no opt-out.
Google’s vice president of ads testified, “We tend not to tell advertisers about pricing changes.” The court added that many advertisers do not even realize Google is responsible for the price shifts.
Why this changes how you read your account
The ruling does not automatically prove your account was affected. But it reframes a familiar PPC problem: a rising CPC is not always an account that needs restructuring. Sometimes the auction itself moved.
Think of the audit as three lenses: ad type, years and billing entity.
What to check first
Start with general search text ads. The court did not find a monopoly in the broader market for search advertising, which includes retail ads sold by Amazon and Walmart. If much of your spend went to Shopping or Performance Max, separate the text-ad portion before drawing conclusions.
Then pin down three things. Pull which ad types, years and markets carried the spend. Confirm which legal entity accepted Google’s terms and paid the invoices. Record which agency or manager account ran campaigns, and when. That ownership detail matters because Google’s advertising terms contain an arbitration clause, and whoever paid for the ads holds the claim.
Display is a different case
Do not lump display spend into the search analysis. A separate April 2025 ruling in Virginia found Google monopolized two parts of the display advertising chain, focused largely on publishers. Which ruling applies depends on the products and years you used.
Google disagrees with the search ruling and is appealing. A September 2025 remedies order does create one practical shift: Google must publicly disclose material changes to its ad auction. Future pricing changes should be harder to hide.
Our take
The actionable insight is not “sue Google.” It is triangulate. Pull your search text-ad CPC history, overlay the auction-change dates, and look for unexplained jumps. Then decide with counsel whether individual arbitration is worth the effort and whether it could affect your account.
Transparency is the KPI to watch. If auction mechanics become more visible, marketers can finally optimize the auction they are actually in.
Source: Search Engine Journal
