Google judge questions pace of ad platform sale

The judge’s concern focuses on the difficulty of finding suitable buyers and the deadline to dismantle the advertising technology monopoly

The judge responsible for the historic antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice (DJ) against Google, Leonie Brinkema, expressed deep reservations regarding the main measure proposed by the government: the forced sale of the technology giant’s ad platform. In a session of closing arguments that will define how to remedy the violation of antitrust laws, the judge emphasized that “time is of the essence” and expressed concern about the “speed” with which the divestment could be completed and the uncertainty of finding suitable buyers.

Read also: Europe tries to contain US pressure on Ukraine

Judge Brinkema had already determined, earlier this year, that Google illegally monopolized two critical pillars of the digital economy: the technology that websites use to market their advertising space and the software which bridges the gap between ad buyers and sellers. Now, the court’s focus is on repair this damage to the market.

The complexity of dismantling the advertising machine

Although the DJ demands the divestiture of Google’s ad platform, the AdXthe Alphabet Inc. company contests the measure, claiming that it would be excessive. The advertising technology unit is an intrinsically linked component of Google’s operations.

Aware that Google will likely appeal any unfavorable decision, the judge pressed government lawyers on the timeline. Attorney Matthew Huppert, representing DJ, indicated that he will seek an expedited appeal and that the sale, at best, could take up to 15 months.

Judge Brinkema’s doubts were not limited to the deadline. She questioned the fact that the Department of Justice has not yet even identified a potential buyerraising the specter that a large company like Microsoft Corp. could raise its own antitrust issues. “We are still at a very abstract level”, he pondered. This lack of definition led market analysts, such as Justin Teresi from Bloomberg Intelligencebelieving that “a court-ordered divestiture is less likely,” although “behavioral measures can go beyond what was proposed”.

The clash between structural and behavioral solutions

The litigation, initiated in 2023 by the Department of Justice and 17 states, centers on the premise that Google’s dominance in advertising technology markets is illegal.

The government’s main thesis, defended by lawyer Huppert, is that the law requires a solution that “completely eradicate Google’s illegal monopolies”. According to him, the only way to achieve this is to force the sale of the ad platform and make the logic behind its advertising auctions public. “Google’s dominance in advertising technology is neither natural nor inevitable”said Huppert. “Structural changes are needed.”

However, Google’s defense, led by lawyer Karen Dunn, countered, claiming that the government is “exaggerating” when seeking a forced sale. “Divestment is the last resort, not the first and certainly not the only”she declared. Dunn highlighted the monumental technical difficulty of the proposal, compared by a Google engineer to “going to the Moon”, and accused the DJ of “ask the court to order one of the biggest technical projects in history”.

In contrast, Google proposes a solution based on behavioral measures which, according to the company, could be implemented in about a year. The proposal aims to integrate its technology with the popular alternative Prebid and with competing ad servers. Additionally, Google has committed not to reactivate auction mechanisms that the court has already deemed illegal, such as “first look” and the “last look”. “Google’s solutions will restore competition”promised Dunn.

Trapped in Google’s web

The DJ, in turn, refutes the adequacy of behavioral measures, arguing that Google will continue to have incentives to abuse its market position. Huppert insisted that forced sales are the only guarantee against future monopolistic or improper conduct.

The government’s proposals include several changes to Google’s ad server business model — the “brain” which organizes the advertising space of sites. One of the demands is that Google is obliged to create a tool that facilitates data transfer from editors of sites off your platform. The government bases this demand on the testimony of several editors during the trial, who felt “trapped” by Google, as switching to a different ad server would require a complete recreation of its files.

The DJ’s other central proposal aims to impose publicizing the final logic of the auction within the ad server that determines the winning ad.

While Judge Brinkema searches for a path that is technically viable to reshape the advertising technology market, the shadow of a similar case hangs over the process. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington is finalizing his own solution after ruling in 2024 that Google monopolized the search market online. Mehta rejected DJ’s request for Google to sell its browser Chromechoosing to prohibit the company from signing exclusive contracts for its search engine.

The challenge now falls to Judge Brinkema, who must balance the need to eradicate the root of monopoly — as per the expression “Root and Branch” used by the DJ — with the risk of an excessively complex and time-consuming solution, which can cause more uncertainty and instability in the market.

With information from Bloomberg*