Google Tells Court the 'Open Web Is Already in Rapid Decline,' Reversing Public Claims

Google told a federal court this month that “the open web is already in rapid decline,” a stark reversal of public assertions by company executives that search traffic and the wider web are “thriving.” The statement appears in a filing in the Justice Department’s antitrust case seeking remedies that could include breaking up parts of Google’s advertising technology business.

In the filing, Google argued that forcing a divestiture of its ad-tech operations would “only accelerate that decline” and “harm publishers who currently rely on open-web display advertising revenue,” saying market shifts such as connected television, retail media and artificial intelligence are reshaping where advertisers spend their dollars. The filing was flagged by industry analysts and reporting outlets after being filed in the government’s ongoing case.

The disclosure contrasts with repeated public statements from senior Google officials. Chief Executive Sundar Pichai and other executives have defended the company’s AI-powered search features and said Google continues to send traffic to a broad set of publishers. In May, Pichai said Google was “definitely sending traffic to a wider range of sources and publishers” since rolling out new AI search tools, and Google senior vice president Nick Fox told a podcast audience “from our point of view, the web is thriving.”

Google’s court filing framed the company’s position as a defense of market-driven change, asking the court not to intervene in an industry it said is already being reshaped by technological trends. “As the law makes clear, the last thing a court should do is intervene to reshape an industry that is already in the midst of being reshaped by market forces,” the filing said.

The Justice Department has argued that Google illegally monopolized key parts of the digital-advertising market by controlling critical elements of how ads are bought and sold, squeezing competition and reducing publishers’ negotiating power. Prosecutors say structural remedies are necessary because the company used its dominance in search and other products to cement its position in ad tech. A trial on remedies is set for later this year following an earlier finding by the court that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in parts of the digital advertising market.

Google’s public relations team disputed how the court quote has been characterized, saying the company was specifically referring to “open-web display advertising” rather than the open web as a whole. A Google spokesperson said investments in non-open-web channels, such as connected TV and retail media, are growing at the expense of open-web display ad spending. That distinction, the company added, is central to its argument against a court-ordered divestiture.

Independent publishers and industry groups have raised concerns for years about declining referral traffic tied to algorithm changes and the rise of generative AI features that provide direct answers in search results. Research and industry reporting have shown that some users are less likely to click through from AI-driven overviews and rich search results, reducing pageviews and ad revenue for news and content sites.

Industry analysts and advocates seized on the apparent contradiction between Google’s private court filing and its public messaging. Jason Kint, an analyst who monitors digital advertising, said the company “can’t claim the web is thriving in public and collapsing in private,” and search-industry observers noted the line was used strategically in litigation to argue against a structural remedy.

Last week, a federal judge ruled against forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser or Android operating system while finding the company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in online search. The judge ordered Google to end certain exclusive agreements that secured its default search placement, to share some search data with competitors and to submit to six years of monitoring — decisions that were seen as a mixed outcome for both the government and Google.

The government’s pursuit of remedies in the ad-tech case represents one of the most consequential antitrust fights in the tech industry since the late 1990s. Prosecutors contend that divestiture or other structural changes are required to restore competition, while Google and some market participants say industry shifts driven by technology and advertiser preferences, not anticompetitive conduct, are the chief forces altering the ad ecosystem.

The dispute underscores tensions at the intersection of search, advertising and artificial intelligence. As AI-powered features change how information is presented and consumed, regulators, publishers and platforms are grappling with how those shifts affect traffic, revenue and competition across the open web. The court will consider those arguments as it weighs whether structural remedies are necessary to address the Justice Department’s claims.