In a dramatic shift from its long-held public stance, Google has admitted in a recent court filing that “the open web is already in rapid decline,” a statement that has sent shockwaves through the tech and publishing industries. This revelation, made public on September 9, 2025, during a landmark antitrust case in Virginia, stands in stark contrast to the company’s repeated assurances that the internet is not only alive but thriving, raising questions about the true state of the web and Google’s influence over it.
For months, Google’s top brass—including CEO Sundar Pichai and VP of Search Nick Fox—have publicly insisted that the internet is flourishing. Pichai declared in May, “web publishing is not dying,” while Fox asserted, “the web is thriving.” Liz Reid, Google’s head of Search, also claimed that click volumes have remained “relatively stable” since the introduction of AI Overviews, with the company “driving billions of clicks every day” to various sites. These statements were meant to reassure publishers and advertisers that Google’s evolving search and advertising tools were not harming the broader digital ecosystem.
But the story told behind closed doors is a different one. In its legal defense against the U.S. Department of Justice’s push to break up its advertising technology business, Google argued that “the open web is already in rapid decline and Plaintiffs’ divestiture proposal would only accelerate that decline, harming publishers who currently rely on open-web display advertising revenue.” The company cited major shifts in the industry, including the meteoric rise of Connected TV, retail media, and the pervasive impact of artificial intelligence on advertising technology, as key factors driving this downturn.
Google’s legal team made it clear in its filing: “AI is reshaping ad tech at every level; non-open web display ad formats like Connected TV and retail media are exploding in popularity; and Google’s competitors are directing their investments to these new growth areas. The fact is that today, the open web is already in rapid decline and Plaintiffs’ divestiture proposal would only accelerate that decline, harming publishers who currently rely on open-web display advertising revenue. 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 contradiction between Google’s public optimism and its courtroom pessimism has not gone unnoticed. According to The Verge, this reversal has fueled widespread criticism from publishers, industry observers, and antitrust advocates. Many accuse Google of presenting a rosy picture to the public while painting a dire one for the courts, depending on which narrative best serves its interests at the moment. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, summed up the sentiment on social media: “Google can’t claim the web is thriving in public and collapsing in private.”
In response to the backlash, Google spokesperson Jackie Berthe attempted to clarify the company’s position, telling The Verge and The Post that the controversial statement was being misinterpreted. “It’s clear from the preceding sentence that we’re referring to ‘open-web display advertising’ and not the open web as a whole,” Berthe said. She emphasized that the company was simply acknowledging the obvious: investments in non-open web display advertising—like Connected TV and retail media—are growing at the expense of traditional open web display advertising. Google also amended its court filing to avoid confusion, but the distinction has done little to ease concerns among publishers and independent outlets.
The stakes in this legal battle are high. The Justice Department is seeking remedies that could include forcing Google to divest its ad tech unit, which prosecutors argue has enabled the company to dominate the market for digital ads, crush competition, and squeeze publishers. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Google had illegally monopolized the markets for its DFP ad server and AdX ad exchange by tying the products together, harming competition. The DOJ now contends that only a structural remedy—namely, breaking up Google’s ad empire—can restore a level playing field.
Google, for its part, argues that such drastic intervention would be both technically unworkable and harmful to the very publishers regulators aim to protect. The company maintains that market forces—especially the rise of AI, Connected TV, and retail media—are already reshaping the industry, and that a forced breakup would only accelerate the open web’s decline.
The controversy comes on the heels of another major antitrust ruling against Google. Earlier this month, Judge Amit Mehta rejected the DOJ’s push to force Google to sell its Chrome browser, calling such a move “incredibly messy and highly risky.” Instead, the court imposed restrictions on Google’s exclusive default search engine deals and mandated a one-time sharing of certain search data with competitors. The court found that while Google’s dominance stemmed from both illegal deals and lawful conduct, a total breakup would likely harm consumers and partners alike.
Meanwhile, publishers and independent site owners have been raising alarms about declining traffic for months. Many attribute the downturn to Google’s prioritization of AI-generated answers over traditional blue links, which reduces the need for users to click through to original sources. A July 2025 Pew Research Center report confirmed that users are significantly less likely to visit websites when AI summaries appear in search results. This trend has left publishers grappling with reduced ad revenue and questioning the sustainability of the open web model.
Industry critics argue that Google’s deployment of AI in search is fundamentally altering the web’s economic model, creating a vicious cycle: as publishers lose traffic, they produce less content, which could indeed hasten the web’s decline. Many see Google’s courtroom admission as an attempt to use a problem of its own making to shield itself from legal remedies, without fully acknowledging its role in causing the very decline it now cites as a defense.
As the trial on remedies for Google’s ad tech dominance approaches, the company finds itself in a precarious position, needing to reconcile its conflicting narratives under intense judicial and public scrutiny. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences not just for Google, but for the future of the open web and the digital economy as a whole.
With the legal and technological landscapes shifting rapidly, publishers, advertisers, and consumers alike are watching closely to see whether the open web can survive these seismic changes—or whether Google’s stark courtroom admission will prove prophetic.
