LitFin takes aim at Google’s ad tech stack

More than 20 European news publishers have filed a damages claim against Google in the District Court of Amsterdam, seeking more than €640 million over alleged anticompetitive conduct in online advertising technology. The claim follows the European Commission’s €2.95 billion fine against Google and alleges that publishers suffered losses through lower advertising revenues and higher ad tech fees as a result of Google’s conduct across the ad tech stack. LitFin is financially supporting the action, covering the litigation costs and assuming downside risk if the claim fails. We spoke to LitFin COO Matej Pardo about why the funder is backing the claim and where the case fits within the broader wave of ad tech litigation against Google.

1. LitFin is financially supporting a claim by more than 20 European news publishers seeking more than €640 million from Google. What made this the right case, and the right claimant group, for LitFin to back?

For us, this is exactly the kind of case litigation funding is meant to support.

The legal merits are strong. Google’s conduct in ad tech has now been examined by competition authorities and courts in several jurisdictions, including most importantly by the European Commission.

But beyond the legal merits, the claimant group matters. Online advertising is one of the main ways independent media funds journalism, pays editorial teams and invests in its future. When that market is distorted, financial damage affects the way independent media, which is critical in today’s world, can operate.

That is why we see this as both a strong case and an important one. It is brought on behalf of directly affected publishers, supported by experienced lawyers and economists, and based on conduct that has already drawn serious scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic.

2. The claim follows the European Commission’s €2.95 billion fine against Google for alleged abuse of dominance in online advertising technology. How important is that regulatory finding to the claim strategy, damages analysis and risk profile from a funder’s perspective?

We viewed this as a strong case before the European Commission decision and fine. There are several reasons for that. Firstly, the French Competition Authority already issued a decision in this case in 2021, which Google agreed not to contest. The U.S. Department of Justice also brought a civil lawsuit against Google alleging that Google monopolised several digital advertising technologies. In April 2025, the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia found in favour of the Department of Justice, holding that Google violated U.S. antitrust laws. On top of that, several news publishers have already obtained damages awards against Google for its abuses in ad tech in France. This includes Groupe Rossel from Belgium, and M6 from France.

Of course, the European Commission decision only further strengthened our conviction in this case and also made it a “follow-on” case in the Netherlands. It also somewhat expanded the scope of the case with an additional new element of the conduct on the advertiser side. This element is immaterial to the publisher claim, but it does further show the extent of Google’s abuse.

National courts in the EU can’t adopt resolutions running counter to a Commission decision. That binding effect applies from the moment the decision is issued, and it is not suspended by an appeal to the General Court. Therefore, in principle, we can rely on the Commission’s findings for liability. National courts may exercise some caution in practice, for example if Google’s appeal raises a plausible argument that could narrow the decision. However, the element of the conduct that is relevant to our claim (the publisher side element), has already been decided in France, and, importantly, not disputed by Google. Consequently, the chance that this element of the decision would be narrowed by the General Court is minimal.

3. The claim has been filed in the District Court of Amsterdam. Why was the Netherlands selected as the forum, and what features of the Dutch system make it attractive for this type of competition damages claim?

The Netherlands is a logical forum for a case of this scale and complexity.

Google has significant European operations connected to the Netherlands, and in our view that provides a strong basis for bringing the claim before the Dutch courts rather than forcing publishers into fragmented proceedings across multiple countries.

Amsterdam is also an established venue for serious commercial disputes. The court is familiar with complex international litigation, sophisticated parties and technical evidence. That matters because this is not a simple damages case. It involves publishers from across Europe, economic modelling, digital advertising infrastructure and a defendant with vast resources.

For a funder, predictability also matters. Dutch proceedings are relatively efficient and more cost-predictable than those in some other jurisdictions.

4. Media groups from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Hungary, France, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland and Poland are participating in the claim. How does LitFin manage the practical and strategic complexity of funding a multi-country publisher claim?

The complexity exists, but managing this kind of complexity is one of our main value propositions.

Legally, the case has a common core: the alleged conduct, the affected market and the harm to publishers. Operationally, however, each claimant has its own business, documents, advertising data and internal processes.

LitFin has managed multi-country claims involving hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of claimants across Europe. We have built systems for onboarding, document collection, data management, claimant communication, and regular reporting. Without that infrastructure, a case like this can quickly become unmanageable.

The fact that publishers from so many countries are involved is also important. It shows that this is not a local dispute or a problem in one market. The alleged harm is spread across Europe. The case reflects a broader issue in the online advertising ecosystem and its impact on the media sector.

5. Google is facing antitrust enforcement and related claims in Europe, France and the United States. How does this claim fit within the broader global wave of ad tech litigation against Google?

This claim is part of the next phase of ad tech enforcement: compensation.

Public authorities have done important work investigating Google’s conduct. Regulators and courts in Europe, France and the United States have all examined how Google operated across the ad tech stack. The underlying concern is very consistent: whether Google used its position in digital advertising technology to distort competition and harm the businesses that depended on that ecosystem.

Our case focuses on publishers. For them, advertising revenue is a primary issue. It is one of the economic foundations of independent media. When that revenue is reduced or diverted, the consequences can be severe.

That is where this case fits. It is a European publisher claim, brought in a serious forum, backed by evidence, and supported by funding that allows claimants to pursue a defendant they could not realistically take on alone on equal terms. For LitFin, that is precisely the point of litigation funding.