Assessing the most likely outcomes of Google’s pivotal ad tech antitrust trial
President Donald Trump was sworn in for his second term earlier this month. During the inauguration ceremony, a coterie of Big Tech CEOs in prominent positions was prominently featured, and observers interpreted this as a bid to curry favor with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Among their number was Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, who, despite being the lowest profile of the assembled executives, is arguably in the deepest hot water given the host of battles it faces with the Justice Department and could do with a sympathetic ear in the executive branch of the U.S. government.
Examples include the business-critical search case, where it faces the forced sell-off of the Chrome browser, and in addition to this case, which Google lost but is in the process of appealing, is its ongoing ad tech antitrust trial, where a verdict from presiding Judge Leonie Brinkema has been anticipated for weeks. DOJ lawyers are pushing for a forced sell-off of its sell-side ad tech tools. Many expect the ruling to go against Google, prompting (yet another) appeals process, with the looming uncertainty splitting opinion on how best to position oneself for the resulting fallout.
However, Digiday Research poses the questions below, with sources split on whether material changes can be felt any time soon.
- Has Google actually outfoxed its detractors, with ad tech now a blip on the radar of its strategic priorities?
- What are the most effective means of addressing competition concerns?
Firstly, it’s worth revisiting the DOJ’s case. Lawyers there maintain that Google has used its massive market presence, i.e., its multi-pronged suite of ad tech tools, to advantage itself, with publishers as the chief casualties in such a scenario (see video).
As a result, the DOJ is advocating for a forced divestiture of the online advertising giant’s sell-side ad tech tools, such as AdX and Google Ad Manager. However, as recent Digiday Research findings show, the industry is split on whether such a sell-off would change anything. Some publishers even fear that such a wholesale change to a business-critical ad tech stack could damage their monetization efforts.
Megan Gray of GrayMatters, Law & Policy, previously told Digiday, “Google has seen the writing on the wall,” adding that such a realization is at the core of its Privacy Sandbox efforts, whereby Google’s Chrome team is proposing to transfer the ad serving and supply-side platform functions into its web browser, with many interpreting it as a bid to offset the impact of any proposed breakup under the Brinkema case.
Albeit, it’s worth considering how the penalty pursued by the DOJ in the concurrent search case, i.e., a forced Chrome sell-off, would impact this, given how it would theoretically cut off Google from the data browser’s three billion-plus users and all the data/consent signals they imbue it with. This could seriously throw a spanner in any pre-emptive positioning the online ad giant attempts to make.
Representatives from the industry pressure group Movement for an Open Web, a vocal critic of Google, are in broad agreement with Gray’s assessment, arguing that Google is using the veil of privacy to mask its anticompetitive interests, adding any remedies from Brinkema (should she find Google guilty) must include the sale of AdX.
“As the owner, supplier, and customer of its advertising exchange, I think you’ll find it’s quite widely discussed that AdX has to be sold off to get rid of the conflict of interest,” argues Tim Cowen, chair of antitrust practice Preiskel & Co., adding that this alone would not “get rid of the problem.”
Cowen and several other sources consulted by Digiday observed that even with a forced divestiture of AdX, the industry’s largest demand-side platform (Google’s DV 360) would be the ad exchange’s largest customer.
Additional assurances needed
One publisher-side source, who spoke with Digiday on condition of anonymity to preserve their employer’s relationship with Google, noted how divesting AdX and or GAM in isolation could have a counter-intuitive impact. “We already know DV 360 funnels the vast majority of spend to Google-owned and operated properties, [with a divestiture] it can accelerate that process even more,” added the source, observing how such a scenario would relieve the DSP of any accusations of conflict of interest.
MOW’s legal advocate, Cowen, maintains that any additional potential remedy prescribed by Judge Brinkema would require additional guardrails to ensure an actual market impact. “What you need is a non-discrimination order on the advertising exchange that’s [theoretically] being separated [from the rest of Google],” he adds. “Even if it was in someone else’s hands, it still has an interest in preferring Google and giving it better terms.”
Paul Bannister, chief strategy officer at Raptive, further observes how divestiture of Google’s sell-side business may (ironically) unburden itself of arguably the second-largest millstone that has hung around its neck in the 2020s: Privacy Sandbox, Google’s bid to meet its privacy obligations by removing the utility of third-party cookies within Chrome while fending off anticompetitive charges.
“First, Chrome will make the ‘cookie choice’ popup very like Apple’s ATT prompt,” he wrote in an early January 2025 LinkedIn post. “This is basically cookie deprecation. Chrome will also give up Privacy Sandbox. They won’t announce anything but will slowly stop building things. Sandbox has limited benefit to the O&O business of Google. While Sandbox is flawed, publishers need all of the tools [sic] they can get to combat signal loss, and losing Sandbox will hurt.”
Some are concerned that Google may have outsmarted its antitrust foes, a prospect that wasn’t lost upon speakers at the recent Advertising Week, New York, conference where speakers aired concerns that the DOJ “is fighting yesterday’s war,” noting how Google may gladly divest of its lowest revenue-generating advertising arm.
After all, Alphabet’s latest quarterly earnings report demonstrates how “Google Network Members’ properties” – the display advertising business many regard as the unit for its ad tech ventures – generated $7.5 billion in Q3, 2024, compared to YouTube’s $8.9 billion. While these are hefty numbers, comparing search revenue for the same period ($49.4 billion); this may hint at where Google’s core priorities lie.
Contemplating any potential remedies prescribed by Judge Brinkema, Rob Webster, founder of marketing consultancy TAU Marketing Solutions, states that Google would likely put up the faintest of resistance to a court order to sell off AdX and GAM.
Any such resistance would most likely be for performative reasons only, in his opinion, as it would have a minimal impact on its more strategic priorities of preserving its search advertising market share and the burgeoning YouTube media operation. “If they think the DOJ will accept it, they’ll do it, and it will happen relatively quickly,” he says, forecasting any such divestiture would be done within a year.
However, all sources consulted in the research of this article maintain that a simple sell-off of these tools would fall much short of the DOJ’s goal of redressing the imbalance of how marketers’ ad dollars are distributed, with Webster maintaining that achieving such an aim requires further restrictions on Google’s dominant media measurement capabilities.
Google has unmatched signal measurement capabilities through its ownership of vastly scaled consumer-facing tools such as mobile OS Android or web browser Chrome and multiple APIs that directly plug into advertisers’ campaign systems, he maintains. This is in addition to its ownership of YouTube, where ad space can only be bought via Google tools such as its DSP, with many predicting it will be forced to open this opportunity to third parties as part of any remedies.
Carve out ‘the crown jewels?’
Webster refers to these tools as “the crown jewels” of Google’s media empire, as these levers give it unparalleled ability to measure ad performance, making it the go-to resource for direct-response advertisers. “Things like this give Performance Max [Google’s algorithmically-driven ‘black box’ offering that regularly gets called out as a standout revenue driver by its executive team] a huge win… control of measurement means that stack of tech is untouchable,” he adds.
Requiring Google to spin out these “crown jewels” would cause Alphabet executives to take a much deeper breath and likely prompt a more resolute fightback, according to Webster, adding that this and the enforced opening of its conversion API would further democratize ad measurement.
For James Rosewell, founder of MOW, lawmakers across the globe should force Google to open-source its measurement capabilities, as such a concerted action would have a better likelihood of achieving success. “Rather than having a company with proprietary code, it could be opened up,” says Rosewell, adding that such a scenario would act as the “seed to a new market in innovative products in the space.”
However, such a theoretical scenario would take years to be realized (at best), with Webster certain that Google would certainly throw the full force of its ample legal defense team to resist any such machinations. Meanwhile, Rosewell is doubtful that legal teams have the resources necessary to achieve such an aim. “I don’t think it’s likely to happen because I don’t think the imagination is there from the lawyers,” he adds.
Of course, Google is resolute in its defense, with lawyers there claiming its ad tech is the cornerstone of emerging subsectors of the media industry, with the DOJ’s assertions atavistic of days gone by, ergo no longer fit for purpose.
However, what most are in agreement on is that Google’s battles with the government are far from over, regardless of any newfound friends in high places.
More in Media Buying
GroupM’s leadership reorg gets an assist from a McKinsey exec
GroupM continued to centralize its operations at a global corporate level, with global CEOs of the brands taking on company-wide roles.
How ad buyers and sellers are placing their bets in 2025
Executives from brands, agencies and media companies, including Havas, Mastercard, NBCUniversal and Stagwell, revealed where they are placing their chips in 2025 — as well as the bets they would expect to fold this year.
Media Buying Briefing: Handicapping the 2025 national ad marketplace, from an investment POV
What does the ad market hold for investment execs heading into 2025? A curious mixture of optimism at the opportunity uncertainty can create, and trepidation due to clients holding back long-term spending.