Following a recent landmark ruling that spared Google from a government-proposed breakup over its search monopoly, the company is now seeking another victory in court.
Starting Monday, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema will preside over arguments in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, focused on remedies for Google’s dominance in online advertising technology. Earlier this year, the judge determined that Google had illegally maintained its monopoly over the complex, behind-the-scenes system that places advertisements across the web. This crucial hearing is expected to span two to three weeks.
The Justice Department has explicitly stated its desire for Google to divest the technology it uses to connect ad buyers and sellers, among other potential solutions. Google, however, has countered with its own proposals, suggesting changes to its ad auction bidding system that would, it claims, benefit publishers.
Judge Brinkema’s final decision holds the power to significantly disrupt Google’s vast $3.1 trillion business and could redefine the landscape of tech dominance in the contemporary internet era.
She has already hinted at the possibility of a substantial intervention, having inquired during a May hearing whether mandating the sale of one of Google’s advertising software products could alleviate her concerns. Legal experts suggest that this case’s alignment with stringent past antitrust rulings might empower the judge to adopt a more aggressive stance.
This hearing follows a more conservative antitrust judgment delivered by Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia earlier this month in the separate search monopoly case. In that ruling, Google’s search operations were largely permitted to continue as-is. While the company was ordered to share its search results with competitors and limit payments that secure its engine prime placement on browsers and smartphones, Judge Mehta rejected the government’s more severe demands, such as forcing Google to sell its widely used Chrome web browser.
The outcomes of these cases against Google are expected to influence other government antitrust lawsuits targeting major tech corporations. A ruling is anticipated this year in a case against Meta, where the government argued the company stifled emerging competitors by acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp.
An antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, which accuses the company of disadvantaging small merchants on its platform, is slated for trial in 2027. The government has also sued Apple, alleging that it creates barriers for users wishing to exit its device ecosystem.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s global head of regulatory affairs, issued a statement asserting that the Justice Department’s proposed fixes for ad technology are overly broad. She argued they would “unwind acquisitions the Court found to be lawful, and risk breaking tools that work for advertisers and publishers.”
The Justice Department declined to provide further comment.
A forced breakup of Google would mark the most significant court-ordered action against a monopoly since a federal judge unsuccessfully attempted to split Microsoft two and a half decades ago. The most recent successful instance dates back to 1984, when AT&T’s local phone business was divided into seven regional operators after reaching a settlement with the government.
The ad tech case, officially known as U.S. et al. v. Google, was initiated in 2023. It delves into the intricate array of programs that facilitate the sale of advertising space across the internet, from news websites to recipe portals. This software suite executes rapid-fire auctions to place ads every time a user loads a web page.
In 2024, this business segment generated $30.36 billion for Google’s parent company, Alphabet, representing approximately 9 percent of its total revenue. According to government figures, Google commands an impressive 87 percent market share in ad-selling technology.
During a three-week trial last year, publishers and rival ad tech firms testified that Google exploited its dominant position to extract a larger share of ad sales than would be possible in a truly competitive market.
The Justice Department contended that Google held a monopoly across three distinct components of the online advertising system: the tools publishers utilize to manage their ad inventory, the platform advertisers use to submit bids for ad space, and the core technology that connects these two transactional sides.
Google countered by arguing that the advertising industry has evolved significantly. The company asserted that ads displayed on websites are now part of a much broader ecosystem, which also encompasses advertising on streaming platforms and social media sites like TikTok.
Judge Brinkema concurred with the government, finding that Google indeed held a monopoly over the publisher tools and the technology that facilitates ad sales. She noted that the company had maintained its monopoly, in part, by tightly integrating these two systems.
However, the judge stated that the government failed to prove that Google had violated the law regarding the tools provided to advertisers, or that its ad tech acquisitions were inherently anticompetitive.
The upcoming proceedings will feature testimony from a range of witnesses, including current and former Google employees, as well as industry experts, all focused on determining how best to address this established monopoly power.
The Justice Department has petitioned Judge Brinkema to compel Google to sell its ad exchange—the software that links ad buyers and sellers. It also seeks to mandate that Google share portions of the code underpinning its ad auctions with competitors. Should these measures fail to foster improved competition, the government additionally requests an independent monitor to assess whether Google should be forced to divest more of its publisher-facing tools.
Google, for its part, has proposed internal changes to open its ad software to competitors. This includes allowing its ad exchange to connect directly with rival ad tools for publishers and revising ad auction rules that competitors claim give Google an unfair advantage.
During the May hearing, Judge Brinkema offered a clear hint that she was seriously considering the government’s argument for a forced sale of Google’s ad exchange.
“If you get rid of the exchange, which is the connector between those two, you no longer tie the publishers in that respect, and the advertisers can go out and use any exchange that they want,” she stated. “Google can’t do anything to try to sabotage that free exercise of choice. Why would that not work?”
Legal experts agree that Judge Brinkema’s ultimate decision will significantly impact the trajectory of antitrust law enforcement.
Doha Mekki, former acting assistant attorney general for antitrust during the Biden administration, remarked that Google being found a monopoly in both search and ad tech offered “a relief for everyone who argued that the laws on the books are sufficient” to regulate the largest tech companies.
“If the remedies fail to address the very serious and pernicious monopoly problems that have been found, I think it raises a question about whether this part of the law is sufficient to police digital markets,” Ms. Mekki added, reflecting on her oversight of parts of the ad tech litigation.
Tripp Mickle contributed reporting.