The ruling, to which 17 judges contributed (with some of them disagreeing), came on 26 January.
"Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective," the firm's head of regulatory affairs Lee-Ann Mulholland said.US district judge Leonie Brinkema said
Google had "wilfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts" which enabled it to "acquire and maintain monopoly power" in the market."This exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web," she said.Google lost on two counts, while a third was dismissed.
"We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half," Ms Mulholland said."The court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don't harm competition."
The ruling is a significant win for US antitrust enforcers, according to Laura Phillips-Sawyer, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.
"It signals that not only are agencies willing to prosecute but also that judges are willing to enforce the law against big tech firms," she said.If you have the stomach for it, you can climb the narrow crumbling stone spiral staircase to reach the roof of St Nicholas' Church in Rodmersham.
From the top of the Norman church you get a panoramic view of north Kent. Directly below there is an apple orchard, beyond that fields of arable farmland with the occasional house, and in the distance the town of Sittingbourne, silhouettes of Thames Estuary heavy industry visible against the sky.This is the land where Quinn Estates developers want to build 8,400 homes, new schools and a new road.
"It's an absolutely colossal development, it will have a devastating impact on this area," says Monique Bonney.She grew up in Rodmersham and after living and working across the world returned to the village. She got married in St Nicholas' Church and has been an independent councillor for the area for 18 years.