On Monday, Google argued that a Virginia judge should retain key components of the ad technology ecosystem, just weeks after its online search business was spared from a breakup.
The tech giant is back in court as the Department of Justice (DOJ) demands that Google divest its ADX exchange business, along with aspects of its publisher’s advertising network and DoubleClick (DFP).
In April, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google, which had recently lost another antitrust case concerning searches, was indeed dominating the technology connecting publishers and advertisers online.
Google’s chief attorney, Karen Dunn, contended that the government’s proposed relief package for the ad tech situation overlooked the necessity for a coordinated solution.
“[They] Dan told the judge,” she noted, though the full context of that remark was missing.
This year, Brinkema had already established that Google controls two distinct markets in ad technology: the publisher market and the ad exchange market.
By integrating its products, the judge found that Google had accessed significant advertising demand contingent on the use of other services, effectively sidelining competitors and violating antitrust regulations.
The DOJ is advocating for the complete sale of Google’s ad exchange, ADX, along with a partial divestiture of its publisher advertisement business, DFP. This would involve separating the code and making it open-source to clarify its pricing and usage. If necessary, a total sale of DFP could follow.
Julia Tarver Wood, the DOJ’s lead attorney, argued that “only structural change” could adequately address Google’s monopolistic practices.
However, she framed the government’s plan as a more measured approach, stating that the sale would only pertain to ads appearing on websites and not affect other areas like in-app advertisements.
In contrast, Google is pursuing narrower remedies. Their proposal would open the AD Exchange to non-Google publisher networks, allowing publishers to share data with competitors.
Dan pointed out that this isn’t a “knee-jerk reaction,” implying the technology has been as resistant to disruption as possible.
Additionally, she referenced a recent decision by US District Judge Amit Mehta, which favored the company.
Mehta ruled that despite confirming Google’s illegal exclusive rights over online searches, the tech giant would not be compelled to sell its Chrome browser. Instead, Google would be prohibited from entering exclusive agreements that favor certain search engines, browsers, or AI chatbots, and must share specific search indexes and user data with competitors.
This ruling marked a timely win for Google after facing two antitrust setbacks in quick succession. While the company adopted a measured tone after the decision, it maintained disagreement with the court’s core findings in the case.
