The advert tech trial many thought would go nowhere has finished the unthinkable: it delivered. Decide Leonie Brinkema dominated that Google illegally monopolized the digital promoting market – validating years of {industry} gripes.
The court docket discovered that Google violated U.S. antitrust legal guidelines by monopolizing the markets for writer advert servers with DoubleClick for Publishers, and advert exchanges, by way of AdX, by tying the pair. Nevertheless, Google was not discovered responsible of monopolizing the advertiser advert community market.
Because the case strikes into the cures part, the query isn’t simply what will get unwound. It’s whether or not it nonetheless issues. Google has already managed the quiet decline of its advert tech enterprise, shedding market share within the course of. And the open internet, which it as soon as powered, is splintering into retail media, walled gardens, and AI-native interfaces. The subsequent model of the web isn’t ready for a court docket order.
No matter treatment emerges, behavioral or structural, the result could find yourself being much less of a reckoning and extra of a short lived elevate: a float for an ad-funded web nonetheless attempting to determine what comes subsequent. Right here’s what to know because the {industry} braces for the fallout.
What now?
We’ve now entered the cures part of the Division of Justice’s antitrust case in opposition to Google’s advert tech empire. Again within the spring, Decide Brinkema sided with the DOJ, ruling that Google held unlawful monopolies within the open internet show writer advert server and advert change marketplaces, and that it unlawfully tied these merchandise collectively. Right this moment, the court docket is again in session, with the result figuring out how an unlimited swathe of the open web will likely be funded within the coming years.
After Google and the DOJ make their circumstances, Justice Brinkema will decide that does the next 4 issues:
- Free the market from anticompetitive habits,
- Unwind Google’s unlawful AdX and DFP monopolies
- Deny the corporate any continued advantages from that dominance
- Block future makes an attempt to rebuild the identical empire in a unique guise
The DOJ’s proposals
The DOJ is concentrating on the guts of Google’s advert tech stack — AdX. Its argument is easy: the advert change, which sits on the heart of programmatic buying and selling and fuels a lot of the open internet, is the supply of Google’s market energy. Strip that out, and the remaining begins to fall. The DOJ, nonetheless, isn’t asking for a divestiture of DFP. It doesn’t should as a result of DFP and AdX are so deeply intertwined; pulling the change aside would, by design, weaken the advert server. With out privileged entry to Google’s dominant change, the advert server loses its edge, making it simpler for publishers to stroll away and breaking the suggestions loop that entrenches Google.
In parallel, the DOJ desires Google public sale logic – the decision-making engine behind who wins advert placements – to be open-sourced. That transfer, though technical on the floor, is designed to stage the taking part in subject and provides competing advert tech suppliers a real alternative on the writer aspect. If it doesn’t, then the DOJ desires the court docket to revisit the choose’s determination in two years and take into account spinning off the advert change utterly.
Witnesses
A cross-section of the advert ecosystem is headed to the stand: advert tech operators, publishers, company execs, and advertisers – every providing a window into how Google’s monopoly, and what may unravel if that grip is loosened. Under is a listing of a few of the extra eminent names amongst them.
DOJ’s lineup
- Matthew Wheatland, DailyMail.com’s chief digital officer
- Stephanie Layser, head of writer advert tech options, AWS (previously Information Corp.)
- Grant Whitmore, Advance Native, CEO
- Rajeev Goel, CEO, PubMatic
- Andrew Casale, CEO, Index Trade
- Arnaud Créput, Equativ, CEO
Google’s lineup
- Jason Nieh, Professor of pc science, Columbia College
- Heather Adkins, vp safety engineering, Google
- Sam Greenfield, senior employees software program engineer, Google
- George Levitte, director, product administration (AdX/DFP), Google
- Jed Dederick, The Commerce Desk, CRO
Google’s proposals
Google has submitted cures, arguing to the court docket that the DOJ’s proposals are extreme, as a substitute asking the choose to concentrate on technical integrations to reinforce writer entry to advert demand, which it claims would tackle market necessities.
Google believes the behavioral cures will sufficiently tackle the conduct that the court docket discovered to be monopolistic in April 2025 – intuitively, it’s arguing in opposition to a divestiture. Broadly, its proposals might be categorized into three classes, see under.
- Deeper interoperability with rival advert servers
- Deprecate unified pricing guidelines
- Agreeing to not use ‘first look’ and ‘final look’for open internet advertisements
Based on Google’s evaluation, a technical integration can open up entry, permitting publishers to obtain Google’s demand, i.e., AdX, by way of third-party advert servers, in real-time.
Equally, it proposes an integration (constructed alongside Prebid) that may enable publishers to realize direct entry to AdX demand in real-time by way of header bidding. Moreover, Google proposes that publishers can (in the event that they select to) place Prebid’s know-how between DFP and AdX, thus guaranteeing that there isn’t a single Google-owned level of connecting between the writer advert server and the advert change.
Moreover, the dedication to not re-establish unified pricing guidelines for open internet show advertisements will enable publishers to train a desire for which advert exchanges to make use of, apart from AdX, per Google.
Google’s rationale
Per Google, the DOJ’s cures lack a authorized foundation, because the court docket discovered no illegal acquisition; therefore, divestiture could be disproportionate, arguing that such a path would entrench court docket oversight for a decade, halt innovation, and thus hurt competitors. Deeper interoperability with rival advert servers will tackle the ruling that publishers have been discouraged from switching away from DFP.
Decide Amit Mehta’s separate antitrust ruling, which meant that Google didn’t should divest Android or Chrome, together with the disruption of AI, will forged a shadow over this case, dynamics which can be more likely to handle the expectations of many media {industry} observers.
Based on Arielle Garcia, a former ad-industry insider and trial commentator at CheckMyAds, the Sept. 2 ruling is the elephant within the room. “The first goal of Google’s current authorized framework temporary is to subtly strain the court docket to fall consistent with Decide Mehta’s refusal to order divestiture, and to maintain cures actually slim,” she provides.
In the meantime, in a ready assertion, Lee-Anne Mulholland, vp, regulatory affairs, Google, says, “Breaking up built-in instruments would make it tougher for publishers to monetize their content material and dearer for advertisers to achieve new clients, disproportionately hurting the small companies who select to make use of Google’s instruments to develop.”
Whereas Decide Leonie Brinkema could have an intensive understanding of the excellence between the search and show promoting sectors by now, the ruling within the search antitrust case could have a bearing, with most observers anticipating a better chance of divestiture within the advert tech proceedings.
And whereas rival advert exchanges Magnite, OpenX, and PubMatic have all filed lawsuits looking for damages associated to the April 17 rulings, Google has signaled its intention to problem each of these losses in addition to the responsible search verdict. Business observers ought to word that this one is much from over.
Estimated timelines
- Treatments trial testimony: September 22-30, presumably into early October
- Publish-trial briefing: ~30 days after shut of proof – late October or early November
- Closing arguments: ~2 weeks after briefs – mid–to-late November
- Decide’s ruling: No set date; possible in 2026, not 2025 – say specialists
