The Department of Justice (DOJ) is pushing for Google to divest itself of two advertising products after a judge concluded that the company unlawfully acquired and maintained control over its ad tech division.
A late-night filing on Monday urged a federal court in Virginia to require the sale of Google’s ADX Exchange business, and suggested a gradual sale of publisher DoubleClick.
This proposal follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who found that Google held dominant positions in two ad technology markets.
Brinkema noted, “The plaintiffs show that Google is actively working to establish and uphold a monopoly in the ad exchange market for Open-Web display ads.”
In response that evening, Google contended that selling ADX and DFP was not “logistically unfeasible” and claimed that these products would only function seamlessly with Google’s proprietary software.
The tech giant maintained that creating an ADX or DFP equivalent that could operate independently would take “about five years,” if not longer.
“By the time these new versions are launched, the landscape of the ad technology sector could change significantly,” the company argued.
Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulhollan, remarked that the DOJ’s proposed actions “exceed” the court’s ruling.
She expressed concerns that this might disrupt the tools advertisers rely on to connect with publishers and effectively reach consumers, noting these tools help apps and video publishers monetize their content.
Instead, Google proposed adjustments intended to “minimize confusion” so that real-time bids for ADX ads could work with competitor ad servers.
Last September, the government stated that Google used acquisitions to bundle products, eliminating competition and securing its dominance in online advertising.
Conversely, Google argued that the advertising technology market is interconnected, extending beyond just online ads to include apps, social media, and connected TV, claiming competition from the likes of Microsoft, Meta, TikTok, and Amazon.
Brinkema found that the ad exchange market is fundamentally linked to the DOJ’s interests in the advertising tech landscape, bridging publishers and advertisers.
Despite the challenges, Google positioned itself as having achieved a partial victory last month, stating, “We’ll win half of this case and appeal the other half.”
Brinkema sided with Google on certain points, determining that there was not a distinct advertiser market for online ads and that the acquisitions of DoubleClick in 2008 and Admeld in 2011 were not anti-competitive.
“The court found that tools for advertisers and acquisitions like DoubleClick do not hinder competition,” Mulhollan stated at the time.
She added, “We disagree with the court’s finding regarding publisher tools. I believe Google offers numerous choices for publishers, making our advertising tech tools simple, affordable, and effective.”
A relief hearing between Google and the DOJ is slated for September.
In another ongoing case, the DOJ is looking to challenge Google for its dominance in online searches, aiming to force the sale of its Chrome web browser and demanding the sharing of search data with competitors.
A relief hearing is also active in this case.
