A US judge is expected to rule next year on breaking up Google's ad tech monopoly, after the DOJ and Google delivered closing arguments in a remedies hearing
The remedies stage follows a finding that Google illegally monopolized the digital ad market, with the case formally moving into that phase in September. That liability finding makes the upcoming decision consequential because it will determine whether the court imposes a conduct remedy or a more fundamental change to the ad-tech business.
The dispute has developed through an extended trial record: Google's defense concluded in 2024, and the parties have now completed their remedies arguments. It also sits alongside a broader judicial shift toward confronting digital-market concentration.
First-order effects
Google and the DOJ now await Judge Brinkema's remedy decision; no operational change is established until the court issues it.
The decision will define the immediate legal constraints on Google's ad-tech operations, including whether a breakup is ordered rather than a less intrusive remedy.
Second-order effects
Advertisers, publishers, and ad-tech intermediaries gain a clearer basis to plan around Google's role only once the remedy is specified; the current hearing closes the parties' argument phase.
A breakup order, if issued, would force rival ad-tech firms and market participants to reassess how they compete or integrate with the Google-controlled systems at issue.
Third-order effects
The case could test whether US courts are prepared to use structural remedies against dominant digital platforms after finding unlawful monopolization, rather than relying primarily on behavioral limits.
Together with the separate Google monopoly proceedings, it reinforces a pattern in which platform antitrust cases are moving from liability findings to the harder question of how market structure should change.
The trend: US technology antitrust enforcement is increasingly focused on whether proven platform monopolies require structural remedies, not just limits on conduct.
here's my bigger truth: if this case doesn't result in structural separation of a major tech monopoly, then nothing likely will. Illegal conduct involves very monopolies and conflicts DOJ seeks to unwind. Court is set to issue remedies inside of 3yrs of complaint (Jan 23). /3
Speaking of chilling, DOJ's lead attorney (Wood) made the same description of “chills down her spine” when Google argued the brilliance of its engineering team. Basically the illegal conduct of the past manipulating the market would continue if just behavioral remedies. /2
US v Google (adtech remedies) closing arguments today, Google effectively warned Court that if forced to sell AdX, AdWords spend will shift even more toward Google's own properties and YouTube - accelerating the decline of the open web. A revealing and chilling threat (again). /1
The DOJ began its opening statements by saying that Google systematically dismantled the competitive process in 2 ad tech markets, and it is not enough to regulate or dilute G's monopoly, but that the court must eradicate it “root and branch,” calling for a “complete
One other notable moment was that Google attorney Karen Dunn referenced Judge Boasberg's Meta opinion for the proposition that “govt must show monopoly power NOW” Asked Brinkema to take recent AdX market share decline into account (56—>42%?) to lean against divestiture
Just got out of closing arguments at the Google DOJ AdTech trial. My main takeaway is the judge showed a lot of skepticism about the timing and benefits of an AdX spin out. Enough to sway me it's not going to happen. Newsletter will come out this evening.
DOJ says depends in part on what Google requests in motion to stay pending appeal But sounds like Brinkema thinks inevitability of several years of appeal impacts what the remedy should be, including structural vs behavioral
Closing arguments just concluded in DoJ's case to force Google to divest its digital ad exchange to remedy monopoly control of publisher display ads. Doubt that happens but Google will implement other fixes to enhance competition from PUBM, MGNI and other sell side platforms.
Judge Brinkema expects first phase of Google adtech decision to come out next year, though she has started pre-work on it already That'll address “core issue” re whether structural remedies or not Then separate order on details, resolve difference on behavioral aspects 🧵
She noted NY court in private case adopted her findings, no settlement realistic here “What I'm looking for from both sides today is how quickly remedies can go into effect” Is it easier to do behavioral remedies pending appeal?
What was on Judge Brinkema's mind at $Goog adtech remedy closing arguments today? “Time is of the essence” so what remedy is right for fast moving tech market “highly unlikely” Google won't appeal liability, so what happens during appeal?