Google UK: Faces Billions in Ad Tech Compensation Claims

• Google faces two separate but related collective actions in the UK from advertisers and publishers over alleged anti-competitive practices in its ad tech business.
• Two groups, AGC Collective Actions Limited and BIRA Trading Limited, are competing to represent advertisers seeking billions in compensation, while publishers' claims are already approved for a 2028 trial.
• Advertisers allege Google used its market dominance to inflate prices or disadvantage rivals through its AdX exchange, with claims brought under the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• The Competition Appeal Tribunal recently declined Google's request for joint management of the cases or a trial delay, but granted Google until January 15, 2027, to respond to BIRA's broader claim.
• The case scrutinizes Google's ad tech practices and could set significant precedents for market dominance and compensation claims in the UK online advertising market.

This Google UK ad tech compensation claim highlights the increasing use of collective actions under the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015 against dominant tech platforms.

Google is currently facing significant legal challenges in the United Kingdom's online advertising market, with claims originating from both advertisers, who allege they paid excessive amounts, and publishers, who contend they received insufficient revenue. These disputes are being heard by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), the UK's specialized court for competition matters.

Two distinct groups, AGC Collective Actions Limited (AGC) and BIRA Trading Limited, are actively competing to represent advertisers in these proceedings, each seeking to secure billions in compensation from Google. These advertiser claims are being considered in conjunction with an existing lawsuit brought by publishers, which has already been approved to proceed.

At the heart of the allegations lies Google's extensive role in the digital advertising ecosystem, where it provides tools for businesses to purchase website advertisements, software for publishers to sell ad space, and its proprietary exchange, AdX, which connects buyers and sellers. AGC specifically alleges that Google exploited its dominant position over both advertisers and publishers to direct transactions towards AdX, thereby undermining competing services in the market. One example cited in AGC's claim details a practice where Google's exchange could view rival bids before conducting its own auction, allowing it to win by offering only slightly higher amounts.

Publishers, whose claims were consolidated under Ad Tech Collective Action LLP after being filed in 2022 and 2023, received approval to proceed in 2024, with their trial currently scheduled for September 2028. They are seeking compensation for lost advertising revenue, mirroring the concerns of advertisers regarding Google's market practices.

The legal foundation for these claims rests on British and European competition regulations, which explicitly prohibit companies from abusing a position of market dominance. The mechanism enabling these collective actions is the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015, which expanded the scope for competition class actions, allowing eligible UK claimants to be automatically included unless they choose to opt out. This framework is crucial for enabling businesses to pursue compensation collectively, particularly when individual lawsuits might be impractical due to the complexity and scale of the digital advertising market.

AGC's claim further details how Google's alleged practices led to advertisers either paying higher prices for their campaigns or receiving less effective advertising outcomes. This was purportedly achieved through methods that inflated advertiser bids on Google's exchange or placed bids sent to rival platforms at a disadvantage. The competing BIRA claim, however, is broader in scope; Google estimates that approximately £2.2 billion of BIRA's £2.31 billion damages assessment is tied to an issue known as 'reserve price optimization,' a specific auction pricing concern not present in the other claims. BIRA's claim also extends to seeking compensation for purchases made beyond direct transactions with Google, a point of contention disputed by AGC, which maintains its claim more accurately reflects advertiser harm.

During a recent hearing, the Competition Appeal Tribunal addressed the ongoing competition between AGC Collective Actions Limited and BIRA Trading Limited to represent advertisers, considering how their claims would integrate with the existing publishers' lawsuit. Google had requested that the litigation be managed collectively and sought additional time to respond to BIRA's more expansive case. Google's lawyer, Meredith Pickford, acknowledged that while some efficiencies might arise from existing work, the proceedings are

This Google UK ad tech compensation claim highlights the increasing use of collective actions under the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015 against dominant tech platforms. The proceedings at the Competition Appeal Tribunal Google are a significant test for how competition law applies to the complex and often opaque world of digital advertising, particularly concerning allegations of market dominance and anti-competitive practices.

The outcome of this litigation could have far-reaching implications for the UK online advertising market competition, potentially leading to substantial compensation payouts and influencing how major tech companies operate their ad tech services. While permission to proceed does not establish that Google broke the law, the ongoing scrutiny underscores the growing legal challenges faced by tech giants over their market power and business practices. Lawyers advising ad tech companies, advertisers, or publishers should monitor this litigation for precedents on market dominance, anti-competitive practices, and the scope of compensation claims in the digital advertising sector.

This case highlights the increasing use of collective actions under the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015 against dominant tech platforms. Lawyers advising ad tech companies, advertisers, or publishers should monitor this litigation for precedents on market dominance, anti-competitive practices, and the scope of compensation claims in the digital advertising sector.

Source: Original reporting via NurPhoto via AFP