US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema declined the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell off parts of its ad tech business, accepting milder remedies to restore competition to markets it illegally monopolized for years.
Brinkema said she would adopt most of the behavioral changes proposed by the parties, with some modifications. But those won’t become public until the parties meet to work out any additional proposed revisions and to review the judge’s opinion for confidential information that must be redacted. They could include proposals like restricting Google from using self-preferencing ad auction tactics or letting third-party ad tech tools access the same real-time information as Google.
Once the final opinion comes out, Google can decide to appeal Brinkema’s underlying decision ruling it an illegal ad tech monopoly, as it recently did for a separate judgement that it had monopolized the online search market. In that case, Judge Amit Mehta also declined to go as far as a breakup, opting instead for Google to share data with competitors and alter its behavior.
In the ad tech case, the DOJ successfully argued that Google had illegally monopolized the markets for publisher ad servers — where publishers can manage ad space for sale on their sites — and ad exchanges, which facilitate the auctions through which that ad space is sold. The judge agreed that Google had illegally tied its publisher ad server, Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP), and AdX ad exchange together in an anticompetitive manner that made it nearly impossible for customers to leave, degrading any competition. However, Brinkema found that the DOJ failed to prove Google illegally monopolized a market for advertiser-side tools. Ryan Pauley, president of The Verge’s parent company PMX Global, was deposed during the case.
“We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,” Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement. In a statement on X, the DOJ Antitrust Division said it was “pleased that the court ordered substantial relief” and that it was “evaluating appropriate next steps.” DOJ Associate AG Stanley Woodward Jr. added, “The timing of the Court’s order reflects the tradeoffs between immediate relief and remedies obtained through years of litigation.”
The remedies decision concludes the district court phase of the third major tech monopoly case brought by the federal government in recent years. Besides the two Google antitrust cases brought by the DOJ, the Federal Trade Commission brought a monopolization case against Meta, which it recently lost, and trials between federal enforcers and Amazon and Apple, respectively, are expected to take place in the coming years.
