For the widely recognized how-to platform WikiHow, Google represents both a formidable adversary and an indispensable ally. This dual role crystallized further during the courtroom proceedings on Wednesday, when Google advanced its defense in the ongoing antitrust trial concerning its ad technology practices. In a dramatic twist, WikiHow emerged not as an accuser but as an unexpected supporter, with its chief executive, Elizabeth Douglas, presenting testimony that shed light on the precarious situation facing publishers like her own.
Douglas illustrated to the court that her company and countless others occupy a precarious position in what she grimly termed an “AI apocalypse.” WikiHow, established on the premise of offering step-by-step, practical guidance to millions of users worldwide, now confronts a tectonic transformation in the manner in which information is located and consumed online. The arrival of generative artificial intelligence tools — ranging from conversational AI chatbots to Google’s own AI-generated search summaries, known as AI Overviews — has redirected user behavior in profound ways. Increasingly, people obtain their desired answers directly from search engine results, thereby bypassing the underlying websites. Consequently, websites such as WikiHow experience not only diminished traffic but also reduced ad impressions and declining ad revenue streams.
Paradoxically, while Google significantly contributes to this destabilization of the traditional web ecosystem, Douglas regards Google’s advertising infrastructure as the one reliable scaffold holding her business together. She testified that, in this period of upheaval where generative AI represents an existential business threat, WikiHow’s revenue from Google’s ad tools is the most stable yet critical component sustaining operations, despite its gradual erosion. To diversify its support, WikiHow also benefits from a supplementary content licensing agreement with Google, which currently provides roughly 10 to 15 percent of its overall revenue. Notably, this agreement does not restrict Google from mining WikiHow’s vast repository of articles to refine and expand its AI-driven search features.
This confluence of dependency and vulnerability throws into sharp relief the broader context of the U.S. government’s case. Judge Leonie Brinkema has been tasked with crafting remedies for what she determined to be Google’s unlawful monopoly in two distinct publisher ad technology markets. Prosecutors with the Justice Department maintain that any genuine solution must entail not only structural interventions but specifically the divestiture of Google’s advertising exchange (AdX) and potentially also its publishing platform, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP). During the trial, Google argued that such radical measures risk introducing unforeseen complications and inflicting collateral damage on its client base, including small and mid-sized publishers. Douglas’ statements underscored these stakes by offering a tangible example of how smaller organizations might be destabilized by restructuring in the very ad ecosystem they currently rely on to keep their operations sustainable.
Central to this debate is an unnerving scenario dreaded by publishers and often termed “Google Zero.” The phrase describes the hypothetical tipping point where Google ceases directing meaningful amounts of traffic outward to third-party websites. Recent industry trends suggest that this prospect is edging closer to reality. As Google increasingly integrates AI-driven summaries into its search platform, users often find their questions resolved directly on the search results page, with no incentive to click through to the originating sites. While this may be an efficient experience for everyday users, it spells financial disaster for publishers who lose opportunities to monetize their content with display ads. Google, for its part, has contested the thesis that AI Overviews systematically block traffic flow to publishers and further insisted in court filings that the phrase “the open web is already in rapid decline” referred specifically to the open web advertising marketplace, later clarifying the potential for confusion.
Douglas, though openly critical of certain aspects of Google’s conduct, indicated to the court that breaking apart Google’s ad technology suite would likely exacerbate her already daunting challenges. She stressed her unwillingness to divert time and scarce financial resources to the logistical headaches of implementing brand-new advertising systems or navigating inferior alternatives. Her concerns were not speculative; she noted that previous arrangements with lesser-known ad tech providers had collapsed dramatically, with one partner going bankrupt before transferring the ad revenues earned by WikiHow. In addition, she expressed apprehension that a new owner of Google’s divested ad tools might reduce the high-touch customer support that her company currently benefits from, leaving smaller publishers adrift in technically complex markets.
However, during increasingly probing cross-examinations by government attorneys, it became evident that Douglas’ understanding of certain sophisticated mechanisms behind Google’s alleged misconduct was limited. Many of Google’s anticompetitive strategies involved manipulating the intricacies of high-speed auctions for ad placements, a process so technically dense and ephemeral it is invisible to the publishers themselves. For instance, she did not appear aware that WikiHow was indirectly harmed by Google imposing artificially inflated fees through AdX, meaning that while WikiHow saw final net payments, it was shielded from the true economic disadvantages imposed by the distorted market. Similarly, Douglas expressed anxiety that the removal of AdX from Google’s ecosystem might strip her platform of vital access to unique advertiser demand. Yet she was unaware that this unique demand was not a neutral marketplace advantage, but rather a product of Google leveraging its own proprietary ad network in ways that the court has already deemed unlawful.
Thus, the paradox confronting WikiHow becomes both poignant and almost emblematic of the publisher community at large: the company views Google as a principal cause of its declining revenue and long-term uncertainty, yet at the same time regards Google as a dependable partner ensuring that its last lifeline of digital advertising functions reliably. In Douglas’ depiction, Google is simultaneously the architect of the storm assailing her business model and the lighthouse operator making sure the guiding beacon still flickers, however faintly. This duality underscores not only the fragility of independent publishers but also the immense, sometimes contradictory role that Google plays in shaping — and destabilizing — the digital information economy.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/tech/790711/google-doj-ad-tech-remedies-wikihow-open-web
