 |
| Image: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty Images |
Google is vigorously defending itself in the remedies phase of the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust case, pushing back against calls to break up its massive ad tech business. The DOJ argues that Google’s dominance in online advertising harms competition, while Google insists that the proposed fixes could create new problems for the entire digital economy.
At the heart of the dispute is whether Google should divest key parts of its ad exchange (AdX) and ad server operations, or whether behavioral rules would be enough to restore fair competition. The decision could redefine the structure of the online advertising industry, impacting publishers, marketers, and everyday web users alike.
What the Court Already Found
Earlier this year, Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google had violated U.S. antitrust law by monopolizing critical ad markets specifically its ad exchange (AdX) and publisher ad server platform (Google Ad Manager). She determined that Google used these tools in tandem to stifle competition and lock in customers.
This ruling set the stage for the remedies phase, where the court must decide how to correct the damage. The DOJ’s proposals are aggressive: they include forcing Google to spin off AdX, open-source its auction code, and impose strict separation between its buying and selling platforms. Google counters with what it calls “balanced solutions,” such as stronger data firewalls and improved interoperability without structural breakups.
Google’s Defense, Structural Remedies Are Too Risky
Google argues that splitting up its ad tech business would be a massive engineering and operational challenge. Executives compared the process to “going to Mars,” claiming it would take years and cause severe disruptions for publishers and advertisers who depend on Google’s systems.
The company warns that divestitures could hurt small publishers the most, reducing efficiency and raising costs in digital advertising. Instead, Google proposes behavior-based solution like limiting data sharing between its platforms and ensuring fair access to ad inventory to maintain stability while addressing the DOJ’s concerns.
According to Google’s public policy team, these targeted remedies would protect the open internet without dismantling core systems that power global advertising. The company also points to ongoing reforms, such as its Privacy Sandbox initiative, as proof it’s already working toward a more competitive ecosystem.
Structural Change for Lasting Competition
The Department of Justice argues that behavioral promises are not enough. Its lawyers say Google has repeatedly promised fair play in the past, only to find new ways to preserve dominance. They believe only a clear structural remedy such as separating AdX from Google’s other platforms can ensure fair competition long term.
The DOJ also proposes open-sourcing parts of Google’s ad auction system to prevent hidden biases, and mandating interoperability so rival ad servers can access real-time bidding data. Regulators argue that such transparency is critical to rebuilding trust in the online advertising ecosystem.
Mixed Signals from Judge Brinkema
During the hearings, Judge Brinkema has expressed skepticism toward both sides. She questioned whether Google’s behavioral fixes would be enforceable and whether a breakup could harm innovation referencing how AT&T’s breakup once led to the loss of Bell Labs, a historic driver of technological progress.
Her challenge is to find a solution that restores competition without destabilizing the ad ecosystem that underpins much of the web’s free content. Observers note that the judge is weighing not just legal arguments but also the economic and technological implications of each proposal.
What’s at Stake for the Internet
If the DOJ succeeds, the case could reshape how digital advertising works across the web. Publishers might gain greater access to ad demand and better pricing transparency. Advertisers could see fairer competition among ad exchanges, leading to more efficient spending. And smaller tech firms could have a clearer path to growth.
However, if Google prevails, critics fear that the ad market will remain overly consolidated leaving publishers and advertisers dependent on one platform that controls both sides of the market. Even modest behavioral reforms may not be enough to stop the slow re-emergence of dominance through new integrations and acquisitions.
The stakes go far beyond Google’s balance sheet. The court’s ruling will influence how future antitrust cases in the tech industry are handled, setting a precedent for how far regulators can go to dismantle entrenched digital monopolies.
Final Thoughts
As the trial continues, the industry is holding its breath. Whether Judge Brinkema orders a breakup or a lighter remedy, her decision will shape the next era of online advertising and possibly the entire business model of the web itself.
For more insights into how antitrust rulings are transforming tech markets, check out my post on how antitrust cases reshape digital ecosystems.