The Rundown: How Google is sizing up to the DOJ in its ad tech antitrust trial

Of course, Google’s advocates will point out how the DOJ only won two of the charges it brought against its ad tech stack in the April 17 ruling, using this point to undermine government lawyers’ push for a forced breakup. 

Specifically, the court ruled that Google illegally monopolized the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets and unlawfully combined those two services.

However, it’s important to note that the court also dismissed claims that Google monopolized the advertiser ad network market, concluding that the DOJ failed to define a clear market in that space.

This particular point is likely to be a key lynchpin in Google defense team’s arguments from here.

Nonetheless, government lawyers aim to strip Google of the advantages it gained through years of consolidation. In particular, this would involve a three-stage remedy, principally through the forced divestiture of its publisher ad server, a.k.a. DFP, as well as its ad exchange AdX (see below). 

Three-phase structural remedy

1. Force Google to give rival ad tech firms real-time access to AdX bidding data via Prebid.
2. Open-source DFP’s auction logic to increase transparency.
3. Divest both AdX and DFP, overseen by a court-appointed trustee and subject to DOJ buyer approval.

Google’s counter-proposals

However, in court filings, Google has proposed a different means of satisfying Judge Brinkema’s purview on how the ad tech ecosystem of the future should look, primarily with a host of behavioral remedies. 

Advocates of the Google POV would submit that the DOJ’s solutions are unworkable, especially with the dawn of AI — concerns some observers have previously raised with Digiday.

Instead, Google’s defense team proposes that its ad tech tools integrate more easily with rivals, facilitate data portability for publishers, and alter its auction logic (see below). 

• AdX integration with rivals: Google will allow AdX to submit real-time bids to non-Google publisher ad servers, addressing the Court’s finding that publishers were discouraged from switching away from DFP.
• Publisher data portability: Google will provide exportable DFP data (insertion orders, creatives, historical logs) to help publishers migrate to rival ad servers.
• Auction logic changes: Google will eliminate Unified Pricing Rules, commit not to reinstate “First Look” or “Last Look” features, and undergo three years of compliance monitoring.

Criticisms of DOJ’s remedies:

These remedies, Google argues, are directly tailored to the antitrust violations identified and can be implemented within 9–12 months, with advocates citing how advances in AI make the DOJ’s proposals particularly unworkable.

Essentially, Google argues the DOJ’s remedies would entrench court oversight for a decade, freeze innovation, and ultimately harm rather than help competition.

• Illegal and excessive: DOJ’s proposal to divest AdX and DFP lacks a legal basis, as the court found no unlawful acquisition, hence divestiture would be disproportionate.
• Technically unworkable: Separating AdX and DFP would involve massive engineering challenges, degrade product performance, and disrupt service for publishers and advertisers.
• Excessive behavioral terms: DOJ seeks to restrict AdWords and DV360, which weren’t part of the Court’s findings. Vague rules (e.g., banning “similar functionality” products) could ensnare lawful services like AdSense.
• Stifles innovation: Forced open-sourcing of auction logic, 10-year behavioral restrictions, and compelled data sharing would weaken competition, harm customers, and inhibit innovation.

What’s next:

• Trial begins Sept. 22, 2025, with factual discovery scheduled to begin June 3.