Google avoided (yet another) breakup… now comes the test of the ad tech remedies

Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the DOJ’s proposed structural remedies, including the divestiture of its ad exchange plus Google’s publisher ad-server business, a.k.a. DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP, as well as the open-sourcing of DFP’s final auction logic. Instead, the court accepted most of the proposed behavioral remedies, subject to modifications.

The focus now moves from ownership to conduct. Google will retain its ad exchange, popularly known as AdX, and DFP but the final judgment will restrict how those businesses operate and interact with publishers and competing ad tech companies.

However, Google must accept most of the behavioral restrictions proposed in the case, although the judge has modified some of them. Google keeps the businesses, but rules will govern what it can and cannot do with them.

The details are still being finalized, with Brinkema giving Google and the government 30 days to submit a proposed final judgment incorporating her decisions. Where the two sides cannot agree on a provision, each must submit its preferred version for the court to resolve.

For the ad tech market, the ruling’s significance will therefore depend less on the absence of a breakup than on how consequential those behavioral restrictions prove in practice. Below are four broad outcomes, worth considering, i.e., the future of how GAM might look.

Google alters its practice, but little really changes

So, while Google continues to own DFP and AdX, it operates them under new restrictions, with the effectiveness of such an approach depending on the precise obligations in the final judgment.

Related Insights

Google on Trial

The Rundown: What Google and the DOJ are proposing for ad tech antitrust remedies Read More

Measures considered during the remedies process were intended to constrain Google’s ability to use its position across different parts of the ad tech supply chain to advantage its own products. This outcome would preserve the existing ownership structure while placing additional rules around Google’s conduct.

For publishers, avoiding divestiture also removes a potentially disruptive outcome. Some publishing executives had questioned whether transferring AdX to another owner would materially improve competition, while requiring publishers to adapt to a restructuring of the ad tech supply chain. Their focus is instead shifting to whether behavioral remedies improve interoperability and access to auction data — these are changes that could give publishers greater visibility into pricing and make competing infrastructure easier to evaluate.

The remedies materially reduce Google’s advantage

A more consequential outcome would be restrictions that change the choices available to publishers and rival ad tech companies’ ability to compete. Requirements that improve interoperability or prevent discriminatory treatment of competing exchanges and publisher ad servers could make alternatives to Google’s technology more viable.

The clearest measure of their impact would be subsequent market behavior: publishers increasing their use of rival infrastructure, independent platforms gaining activity and, over time, changes in Google’s market share. That would allow behavioral remedies to produce some of the competitive effects the government seeks without requiring divestiture.

The competitive impact proves limited

Google retains the vertically integrated structure that was central to the case, including ownership of DFP and AdX. Behavioral remedies regulate conduct rather than separating those businesses, making implementation and enforcement important. Google could comply with the judgment while retaining advantages tied to its scale, technology, customer relationships, and presence across the advertising supply chain. In that scenario, competitors gain additional protections without substantially changing Google’s overall market position.

An appeal extends the dispute

Google has said it intends to challenge the underlying liability decision, creating another source of uncertainty. An appeal could address the court’s findings against Google and potentially affect the remedies flowing from them. That process could extend the legal dispute well beyond implementation of the initial final judgment.

These outcomes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Google could implement the remedies while appealing the case, for example, while the competitive consequences of the restrictions could take considerably longer to establish.

The immediate range runs from relatively limited disruption to a gradual shift in the competitive balance. At one end, Google retains DFP and AdX, meets the new requirements and experiences little material erosion of its position.

At the other, the restrictions give publishers greater freedom to work with competing technology and make independent exchanges and publisher ad servers more effective alternatives.

The next 30 days should provide greater clarity. The court has already decided against restructuring Google’s ad tech business; it now must establish the rules governing it. Their scope and enforcement will determine whether Brinkema’s ruling materially changes competition in ad tech or leaves the existing market structure substantially intact.