The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal granted a Collective Proceedings Order on 5 August 2026 against six companies in the Google group, sending an advertiser damages claim valued by the claimant side at around GBP 5 billion to trial on an opt-out basis. PPC Land reported the ruling on 6 August 2026, and it means every UK-domiciled business that paid for Google search advertising between 1 January 2011 and 15 April 2025 sits inside the class unless it removes itself.
One thing has to be said first, and it will be repeated below. Certification decides whether a claim may be run collectively. It is not a ruling that Google overcharged anybody, and no allegation in the case has been tested at trial.
What the Competition Appeal Tribunal decided on 5 August 2026
The Competition Appeal Tribunal handed down its ruling on 5 August 2026 under the neutral citation [2026] CAT 65, in case number 1720/7/7/25, from a panel chaired by the Honourable Mr Justice Meade sitting with John Davies and Robert Herga. PPC Land, reporting on 6 August 2026, set out that the order was made against Alphabet Inc, Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google UK Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and Google Commerce Limited. The full report is published by PPC Land.
The Tribunal found that Or Brook Class Representative Limited is suitable to act as class representative, that the claims are eligible for collective treatment, and that the proceedings will run on an opt-out footing. The class representative is a special purpose vehicle whose sole director and member is Dr Or Brook, a competition law academic. The estimated class runs to about 880,000 UK businesses and organisations.
What a Collective Proceedings Order is, and what opt-out changes
A Collective Proceedings Order is the procedural gateway in the UK competition regime. It decides whether a claim can be pursued collectively, and on what basis, before any question of who is right has been examined. Granting one on 5 August 2026 puts the Or Brook claim on the road to trial and settles nothing about the merits.
Opt-out is the part with practical consequences for businesses that never heard of the case. On an opt-in footing, each advertiser would have to sign up individually and the claim would cover only those who did. On the opt-out footing the Tribunal granted, qualifying UK-domiciled advertisers are inside the class by default. PPC Land reported on 6 August 2026 that Google had argued for opt-in proceedings, contending that larger businesses could decide participation for themselves, and that the Tribunal rejected that position.
Who is inside the class, and for which years
The class definition is the spine of the order, because it decides who is bound by whatever happens next. The table below sets out the elements as reported by PPC Land on 6 August 2026.
| Element | What the certification sets out |
|---|---|
| Who is included | UK-domiciled advertisers who paid for Google search advertising, whether directly or via a media agency |
| Relevant period | 1 January 2011 to 15 April 2025 |
| Estimated size | About 880,000 UK businesses and organisations |
| Basis | Opt-out, so members are in unless they remove themselves |
| Case reference | [2026] CAT 65, case number 1720/7/7/25 |
Two boundaries in that definition matter. Media agencies are themselves excluded from the class, so the claim follows the advertiser who paid rather than the intermediary who placed the spend. The claimant side clarified that the definition covers text ads and product listing ads on Google search results pages, and that video advertisements are not covered.
The conduct alleged, none of which has been proven
Every sentence in this section describes allegations that will be tested at trial. PPC Land reported on 6 August 2026 that the pleaded case runs through several connected strands. In the Android ecosystem, Google is alleged to have imposed conditions in its distribution agreements with device manufacturers that tied Google Search to the Play Store, and to have offered financial incentives to secure pre-installation and prominent placement of Google Search and Chrome. The claim also concerns agreements setting Google Search as the default search engine in browsers in exchange for payment.
The third strand concerns Search Ads 360. According to the ruling as reported, it is alleged that Google introduced functionality for its own advertising services while refusing or delaying equivalent functionality for Microsoft's competing offering, with the pleaded effect that users of the platform were biased towards advertising on Google. The overall case pleaded is that these strands amounted to a single continuous abuse of dominance allowing supra-competitive prices for search advertising, so that advertisers paid more and achieved a lower return than they would have in a competitive market. That remains a pleaded theory of harm.
Why the Search Ads 360 allegation is the part with paid media substance
This section is analysis of why that allegation is the one media buyers will recognise, not a claim about whether it is correct. Search Ads 360 sits above individual ad platforms as a cross-engine layer, pulling reporting together and applying portfolio bid strategies across more than one search provider. Feature parity between what such a layer can do for one platform's inventory and what it can do for a rival's determines how much of a campaign a large advertiser can realistically run outside the dominant platform.
That is why the pleaded theory has teeth as a theory. If a cross-engine tool is slower to support a competitor's bidding features, the path of least resistance for an agency running a portfolio strategy tends toward the platform the tool supports fully. Whether that happened and whether it caused any advertiser to pay more are questions for trial. PPC Land reported the allegation and reported no finding on it.
What Google argued, and what the Tribunal did with it
PPC Land reported on 6 August 2026 that Google's objections to certification covered its funding arrangements and costs, certain amendments to the claim form, the class definition, and whether certification should be opt-out or opt-in. Google opposed opt-out certification in any scenario, and challenged the claimant's distribution methodology. The Tribunal rejected those objections as a bar to certification.
The Tribunal did not treat the case as free of problems. According to the reporting of the ruling, it raised concerns about the level of costs incurred before certification and about the use of the class representative's consultative panel. Those are questions of case management rather than of liability, and none changed the outcome on certification.
Certification is not a finding against Google
It is worth stating a second time, because coverage of class actions frequently blurs it. What the Competition Appeal Tribunal decided on 5 August 2026 is that a claim of this shape, brought by this class representative, may proceed collectively and on an opt-out basis. Nobody has found that Google charged supra-competitive prices, and nobody has found that any advertiser overpaid.
What the source did not say
The PPC Land report of 6 August 2026 gives no trial date, and none should be inferred. It gives no figure for what any individual business might receive, and the aggregate figure of around GBP 5 billion is the claimant side's valuation of the claim rather than an award or an assessment by the Tribunal. It sets no deadline for opting out, and it records that the domicile date used in the class definition has not yet been fixed and will be determined by the Tribunal.
The report also says nothing about equivalent proceedings outside the United Kingdom, nothing about any effect on how Google Ads operates day to day, and nothing that requires an advertiser to act right now.
What an advertiser outside the UK can take from this
The useful content for a non-UK advertiser is the pricing theory being tested, not any action to take. The claim asserts a link between distribution arrangements that shaped where search demand landed and the prices advertisers paid. If that link is examined in open court, the evidence produced will be the most detailed public material on search advertising pricing in years, whichever way the Tribunal decides.
That is a reason to follow the case rather than to change a media plan. Nothing in the certification alters an auction, a bid strategy or a budget, and advertisers who want more control over what they pay have the same levers they had on 4 August 2026. Running Google Ads campaigns well is still a matter of match types, negatives, conversion quality and landing page fit.
What this means for Thai advertisers
The class certified on 5 August 2026 covers UK-domiciled advertisers. A Thai-registered company is outside it, even if it ran the same campaigns, on the same platform, in the same years, and even if it also advertised in the United Kingdom. Domicile is the test the class definition uses.
A Thai business with a UK-domiciled subsidiary that bought Google search advertising in the relevant period is in a different position, and that is a question for its own legal advisers. The PPC Land report of 6 August 2026 says nothing about similar proceedings in Thailand, so nothing should be read into it either way. The practical Thai takeaway is narrow: the case is worth watching for what it may expose about search advertising pricing, and it changes nothing about how a Thai account is managed this quarter, whether the work is paid search or SEO in Thailand.
FAQ about the UK Google advertiser class action
Am I in this class if my company is in Thailand?
No. The class certified on 5 August 2026 is limited to UK-domiciled advertisers who paid for Google search advertising between 1 January 2011 and 15 April 2025, so a Thai-domiciled business is outside it regardless of spend. A UK-domiciled group company would be assessed on its own facts.
Does this mean Google overcharged advertisers?
No, and that is the single most important point in the story. The Tribunal decided the claim can proceed collectively on an opt-out basis. The allegations of supra-competitive pricing will be tested at trial and have not been established.
Do I need to do anything?
Not unless you are a UK-domiciled business inside the class window and want to consider your position, which is a question for a solicitor. The PPC Land report of 6 August 2026 sets out no deadline and no required step for advertisers.
How much money would a business get?
The source does not say, and nobody can responsibly estimate it. The figure of around GBP 5 billion is the claimant side's valuation of the aggregate claim, not an award, and how any award would be distributed remains a live issue.
When does the trial happen?
The source gives no trial date. Certification on 5 August 2026 sends the claim toward trial, and UK collective proceedings of this size typically involve further case management before a hearing, but no date appears in the reporting.
Watching the case without over-reading it
The strongest reason to pay attention to [2026] CAT 65 is not the headline number. It is that a court will examine, with disclosure and expert evidence, how search advertising was priced across fourteen years, and whatever comes out of that will be more useful to advertisers than the certification itself.
Until then, the work that decides what a Thai advertiser pays per lead sits inside the account rather than in a London courtroom. Relevant Audience audits Search accounts in Thailand for the ordinary sources of waste, whatever happens to [2026] CAT 65.
