An Australian Federal Court has significantly limited the scope of a major class action lawsuit against Google (Alphabet), striking out portions of the pleadings that made claims about the company’s advertising technology business. On March 27, 2026, Justice Michael O’Bryan found that key allegations regarding Alphabet’s role in supplying adtech services and its allegedly anticompetitive conduct were “unclear and ambiguous,” requiring the case to be refined before proceeding. This ruling represents a major procedural setback for the class action plaintiffs, narrowing the claims that can advance to trial and potentially reducing the damages that could be recovered if the case succeeds.
The court’s decision highlights one of the central challenges in modern antitrust litigation against technology giants: proving exactly how companies control multiple layers of the advertising supply chain and how that control harms consumers. While the case remains active and ongoing, the limitation means plaintiffs’ lawyers must now clarify and strengthen their allegations before the matter can progress further. This article explains what the court decided, why it matters for Google adtech class actions, and what happens next in this complex case.
Table of Contents
- What Claims Did the Australian Court Strike Out?
- How This Ruling Affects the Broader Case
- The Carriage Dispute Complicating the Case
- What This Ruling Means for Potential Claimants
- The Challenge of Proving Adtech Antitrust Violations
- How This Compares to Adtech Antitrust Cases in Other Countries
- What Happens Next and the Path Forward
- Conclusion
What Claims Did the Australian Court Strike Out?
Justice O’Bryan’s ruling focused on the pleadings—the formal written statements that outline each party’s allegations and claims. The court found that portions of the class action pleadings were inadequately pleaded, meaning the plaintiffs failed to clearly articulate how Alphabet allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct through its advertising technology services. Specifically, the court struck out allegations about the company’s role in the supply and control of adtech products and services, finding them too vague or ambiguous to withstand a challenge. In litigation, “pleading clarity” is fundamental.
Defendants must know exactly what they’re accused of, and courts must understand the specific factual and legal basis of each claim. For adtech antitrust cases, this is particularly difficult because the advertising supply chain is fragmented, with multiple players (publishers, advertisers, exchanges, networks) interconnected in ways that are hard for outsiders to understand. The Google case demonstrates how challenging it is for plaintiffs’ counsel to allege, with sufficient specificity, the mechanisms through which alleged misconduct occurred. For example, alleging that Google “favored its own ad network” is vague; alleging “Google provided its DoubleClick for Publishers tool with integration advantages unavailable to competitors” is more specific and clearer for the court to evaluate.
How This Ruling Affects the Broader Case
Striking out portions of a pleading doesn’t kill the case entirely—it sends the matter back to the plaintiffs’ lawyers to redraft, clarify, and refile their allegations. However, this procedural delay weakens the plaintiffs’ position in several ways. First, it demonstrates that the court found fundamental gaps in how the case was initially presented. Second, it gives Alphabet’s legal team additional opportunities to identify weaknesses and prepare a defense strategy. Third, and critically, it extends the timeline considerably.
Antitrust cases already take years to litigate; procedural setbacks like this can add months or years to the process. The ruling also signals the court’s skepticism about certain claims. If the allegations about Alphabet’s adtech conduct remain vague even after redrafting, there’s risk the court could strike them out again, or a judge at trial could find them unproven due to insufficient evidence. This is particularly concerning for a class action, where the breadth of claims affects the potential pool of claimants and the damages available. A narrower case means fewer consumers can claim they were harmed and potentially lower compensation. However, the fact that the court allowed the case to proceed at all—and that it didn’t dismiss the entire action—suggests the plaintiffs have viable legal theories that just need better articulation.
The Carriage Dispute Complicating the Case
Beyond the merits, this Australian Google adtech class action faces an additional procedural headache: a carriage dispute between two major Australian law firms, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and Piper Alderman. Carriage disputes arise when multiple firms represent groups of claimants and disagree about who should lead the case. These disputes consume court time, delay progress, and split resources that would otherwise advance the litigation. In this instance, the conflict between the two firms has already spilled into 2026 and continues to create uncertainty about who will control the case strategy going forward.
Carriage disputes can fundamentally reshape a case. If one firm ultimately wins carriage, the other may withdraw, losing institutional knowledge and advocacy capacity. Alternatively, if the firms continue competing, they may propose conflicting legal strategies to the court, creating confusion. For class members (the consumers harmed), carriage disputes are frustrating because they don’t advance the merits of the case—they’re purely about control and fee arrangements between lawyers. The combination of the court’s pleading limitation and the ongoing carriage dispute suggests this case will face significant challenges before trial begins.
What This Ruling Means for Potential Claimants
If you’re an Australian consumer who believes you were overcharged for online advertising because of Google’s alleged anticompetitive practices, the court’s decision has practical implications for your potential claim. First, the scope of the class action may be narrower than originally defined, meaning fewer consumers might qualify to participate. Second, the case timeline has extended, meaning resolution is further away. Class actions often take 5-10 years from filing to final judgment or settlement, and this procedural setback suggests this case could extend beyond that typical range. On the positive side, potential claimants aren’t disadvantaged yet.
The case remains viable, and the court’s request for clarification, while a setback, is a normal part of litigation. Many successful antitrust cases have weathered similar procedural challenges. If plaintiffs’ counsel successfully reframe and strengthen their allegations in a revised pleading, the case could move forward more decisively. The key takeaway: if you’ve already registered as a class member, keep your contact information current with the law firm managing the case. If you haven’t but believe you’re affected, monitor the case’s official website or the law firms’ sites for updates on eligibility and registration deadlines.
The Challenge of Proving Adtech Antitrust Violations
Antitrust law exists to protect competition and consumers from monopolistic or anticompetitive conduct. However, proving that conduct happened and caused harm is extraordinarily difficult in technology markets, especially in advertising technology. Google operates multiple layers of the adtech stack: it has an ad exchange (Google Ad Manager), a supply-side platform for publishers (Google AdSense and Google Ad Manager), a demand-side platform for advertisers (Google Display & Video 360), and a remarketing platform. Proving that the company “mixed” these products anticompetitively—for instance, favoring its own exchange over competitors—requires detailed evidence about how the platforms interact, data flows, and algorithms. A critical limitation in adtech antitrust cases is the lack of transparency.
Google doesn’t publicly reveal how its algorithms prioritize ads, how it values bids across its network, or how it shares data between business units. This informational asymmetry makes it harder for plaintiffs to plead facts with specificity. Contrast this with a traditional antitrust case—say, a company fixing prices in a cartel—where evidence might come from documents, emails, or testimony. In adtech, much of the proof depends on experts inferring conduct from circumstantial evidence, market data, and economic modeling. The Australian court’s decision to strike out portions of the pleadings reflects this reality: the plaintiffs’ allegations, based on incomplete public information, weren’t sufficiently clear about *how* Alphabet’s conduct harmed competition.
How This Compares to Adtech Antitrust Cases in Other Countries
Australia isn’t alone in pursuing adtech antitrust cases against Google. The United States, European Union, and United Kingdom have all launched investigations or litigation. However, the outcomes differ based on each jurisdiction’s legal standards. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission sued Google in 2023, but that case focuses on different allegations and involves different legal standards than the Australian private class action.
The EU has been more aggressive, with the European Commission fining Google billions for adtech practices and launching formal antitrust proceedings. The UK has a similar case underway. The Australian court’s decision illustrates a pattern: courts and regulators globally are skeptical of vague adtech antitrust claims and demand specific, detailed allegations. This suggests that whether in Sydney, Brussels, or Washington, plaintiffs’ counsel need to invest heavily in expert analysis, discovery, and economic modeling to survive initial pleading challenges. The Australian case may be a template for what’s to come in other jurisdictions: careful scrutiny of how the allegations are framed, and pressure on plaintiffs to prove their case rigorously rather than rely on broad assertions about market dominance.
What Happens Next and the Path Forward
Following Justice O’Bryan’s ruling, the plaintiffs’ legal team must now prepare an amended or supplemented pleading that addresses the court’s concerns. They’ll likely work with economic experts and discovery to flesh out exactly how Alphabet allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct, with specific examples, timelines, and evidence. They’ll need to clearly plead what conduct occurred, when, to whom, and how it harmed competition or consumers. Once they file the revised pleading, Alphabet will have an opportunity to respond, and there may be further procedural disputes.
Eventually, if the pleading survives, the case can move into discovery—the phase where both sides exchange documents and information—and closer to trial. Looking ahead, the resolution of this case could set important precedent for Australian and international adtech antitrust litigation. If the plaintiffs ultimately prevail at trial or in settlement, it could encourage similar cases in other countries and embolden regulators to act more aggressively. Conversely, if the case falters or settles for a modest amount, it may dampen enthusiasm for private class actions in this space. For now, the case remains an active, ongoing matter with significant procedural work ahead before any substantive determination on the merits.
Conclusion
The Australian Federal Court’s decision to strike out portions of the Google adtech class action pleadings is a major procedural setback for plaintiffs, but not a fatal blow to the case. Justice O’Bryan found that key allegations about Alphabet’s role in advertising technology and anticompetitive conduct were too unclear or ambiguous to advance without clarification. This reflects a broader challenge in modern antitrust litigation: proving misconduct in technology markets where companies operate opaquely and control multiple layers of complex supply chains. The plaintiffs’ legal teams must now substantially strengthen and clarify their allegations before the case can progress toward discovery and trial.
For potential class members—Australian consumers who believe they were harmed by Google’s adtech practices—the takeaway is clear: the case remains viable but will move more slowly. If you’re registered as a class member, maintain your contact information and monitor updates from the law firms leading the case. If you believe you’re eligible but haven’t registered, stay alert for updates on eligibility and deadlines. The path to resolution is longer than initially anticipated, but the case continues, and the court’s decision, while limiting the scope of claims, shows that the core allegations have enough merit to warrant refinement and a chance to proceed.