Google’s Contradictory Claims on the Open Web Decline

Recently, Google informed a federal court that “the open web is already declining rapidly.” This statement stands in stark contrast to the company’s public assertions that search traffic is flourishing. It also serves as a surprising twist for the Department of Justice, which is working to dismantle Google’s advertising technology empire.

This revelation emerged last week during an active antitrust case against Google, as documented in court filings. Industry analyst Jason Kint highlighted this unexpected admission.

For a while now, Google executives have maintained that the web is “thriving” and that their AI-powered search tools are driving more traffic to publishers than ever before.

However, in court, Google presented a different narrative. They argued that forcing the sale of their advertising business could exacerbate the decline of the open web, negatively impacting publishers dependent on revenues from display ads.

The Department of Justice is pursuing measures that may include disbanding Google’s ad technology division, which wields significant control over the digital advertising landscape.

Prosecutors assert that Google’s practices have stifled competition and marginalized publishers in the ad-buying process.

In their filing, Google claimed that market dynamics—rather than regulatory actions—are reshaping the industry. They pointed to AI, Connected TV, and retail media as emerging areas attracting advertisers.

Google stated, “Today the open web is already declining rapidly, and the plaintiff’s proposed sale would only accelerate this decline.” They emphasized that government intervention could hinder market progress, which is currently undergoing significant changes.

This court statement seems inconsistent with the optimistic tone from Google’s leadership recently.

For example, CEO Sundar Pichai previously stated that since integrating AI search tools, the company has successfully routed traffic to a broader array of sources and publishers.

Nick Fox, Google’s Senior VP of Knowledge, also echoed this positive sentiment on a podcast, declaring that “the web is thriving,” reinforcing a seemingly rosy outlook.

Nevertheless, last month, Google Search Head Liz Reid pointed to internal data suggesting that click volumes were “relatively stable” compared to 2024, even though there were indications that engaging with Google’s AI overview feature resulted in fewer clicks to external sites, as noted in a Pew Research report.

After these statements were scrutinized, Google spokesperson Jackie Berté suggested that Reid’s comments had been misinterpreted, explaining that they were specifically talking about “Open-Web Display Ads,” not the entire open web.

Berté elaborated, “Investment in unopened web display ads, like connected television and retail media, is increasing at the expense of open-web display ads.”

Despite this clarification, the distinction seems inadequate to alleviate the concerns of publishers.

Many independent media outlets have reported declines in traffic attributed to adjustments in Google’s algorithms and the rise of AI chatbots. Critics argue that users are now getting direct answers from Google search results, often bypassing external sites altogether.

Various industry groups have accused Google of being contradictory, projecting strength to advertisers while downplaying its true influence in court.

As Kint remarked, “Google cannot argue that the web is thriving publicly while claiming it’s collapsing privately.”

This filing coincides with the DOJ’s pursuit of remedial actions regarding Google’s ad technology unit. A trial focusing on potential structural remedies is expected later this year after a court previously determined that Google had illegally monopolized the digital advertising space.

If the court mandates a breakup of Google’s operations, it could mark one of the most significant antitrust actions since the government’s legal battle with Microsoft in the 1990s.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled against forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser or Android division and declined to dissolve the company entirely. Instead, Google must end an exclusive agreement that secures its default search engine status, share specific search data with competitors, and undergo six years of monitoring.

Even if the court finds that Google maintains an illegal monopoly through search, this decision is viewed as a substantial win for the company.