Google Seeks To Change The Rules As Advertisers File Arbitration Demands Asserting Antitrust Claims

Earlier this month, Google informed at least some U.S. advertisers that it plans to change Google’s advertising terms and conditions effective July 1, 2026. Google’s proposed changes include significant revisions to the dispute resolution and arbitration provisions: 

• Google added a “batch arbitration” provision, where if "25 or more substantially similar Demands are filed against Google by or with the help of an entity or coordinated group of entities,” then they will be “batched” into groups of up to 100, with a single arbitrator and single award for each “batch.”
• Google added that the parties “bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs in arbitration” except that Google may ask for fees and costs if “either the substance of the dispute or the relief sought in the Demand was frivolous or was brought for an improper purpose.”
• Google changed a provision from its prior advertising program terms, which specified that the arbitration agreement did not “bar any party from bringing issues to the attention of federal, state, or local agencies.” Instead, the new terms and conditions state that advertisers may raise “issues of non-compliance with the law with any relevant public authority.” 

While Google has not publicly explained these coming changes, it may be an eleventh-hour attempt to modify the rules in ways that may benefit Google and disadvantage advertisers, as the search giant faces a growing number of private antitrust claims from companies that have relied upon Google ads to promote their businesses.  Although advertisers may have legal challenges to Google’s proposed changes, including, for example, because they did not receive adequate notice or some provisions could be inconsistent with the law, advertisers may also wish to consult legal counsel to evaluate opportunities to opt out of or otherwise reject these recent changes.

Background

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice and several states won an antitrust trial against Google, United States v. Google LLC, which proved that “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” in the market for general search services and search text advertising. That landmark victory demonstrated how Google has used its monopoly power to unlawfully increase the prices paid for search text advertisements. 

Since the DOJ trial win, companies that purchased Google ads are increasingly commencing arbitrations that assert claims against Google, arguing that Google overcharged them for advertising. Potential recoveries are significant, in part because the DOJ case tolled the statute of limitations to allow recovery as far back as 2016. Additionally, federal antitrust law provides for treble damages and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Google’s Changes May Disadvantage Advertisers

Importantly, the proposed changes to Google’s terms and conditions may disadvantage advertisers who wish to bring claims against Google, although many may not have even received notice of the proposed changes. For example:

• To the extent claims are batched in arbitration, then advertisers may be deprived of individualized determinations because a single arbitrator will decide each batch of up to 100 demands after a single hearing and there will be a single award for all of those demands.
• The new provision purporting to require each side to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs may be an attempt to override federal and state laws that allow for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs by a prevailing plaintiff. These laws exist to strengthen consumer protections and to encourage private enforcement in the antitrust space. Google’s change indicates that it may argue that advertisers must pay their own attorneys’ fees and costs even when they prevail.
• The change in terms of bringing issues to the attention of federal, state, or local agencies is unclear. Is this an attempt by Google to pressure advertisers into not cooperating with agencies like the Federal Trade Commission or European regulators that are currently investigating Google’s advertising auction practices? 

Google has given advertisers a short 30-day window to reject the new terms in its dispute resolution and arbitration provisions, but the language allowing opt-outs is confusing and ambiguous – not to mention arguably unenforceable. Google added that any opt-out “will be effective only if Advertiser or Customer send it themselves, on an individual basis, and opt-out or rejection notices from any third party purporting to act on Advertiser’s or Customer’s behalf will have no effect on Advertiser, Customer, or Google’s rights.” This would seem to discourage engagement with legal counsel at a time when Google advertisers need it most.

These changes to Google’s advertising terms and conditions follow Google rolling out a new data retention policy for Google ads. In May 2026, Google unilaterally decided to “adjust the availability of performance reporting data” so that “granular data” would only be “available” to advertisers for 37 months. Google claimed that this change, effective June 1, 2026, was somehow part of its effort to “continuously strive to improve our services and provide you with the best tools to succeed.”   

These actions by Google follow its well-documented history of Google taking drastic steps to protect its business model in court battles. A federal judge in the Northern District of California described Google as having a “rampant and systemic culture of evidence suppression” that was “the most serious and disturbing evidence [he had] ever seen in [his] decade on the bench.” Similarly, the judge presiding over the DOJ’s search antitrust case was “taken aback by the lengths to which Google goes to avoid creating a paper trail for regulators and litigants.”

Now Google seems to be taking that fight to its advertisers even before litigation begins. The bottom line for advertisers is that Google’s fine print could have significant consequences for potentially valuable claims if these questionable changes were enforceable. If advertisers want to proactively deal with Google’s changes to its dispute resolution and arbitration provisions, or if advertiser want to save data that could be useful for these arbitrations, the clock is ticking.