Google fends off another push for separation.
US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema has turned down the Justice Department’s request to force Google to divest parts of its ad tech business, instead opting for less drastic measures to restore competition in markets where Google has held an illegal monopoly for years.
Brinkema indicated she would accept most of the behavioral changes suggested by the involved parties, albeit with some adjustments. However, the specifics of these changes won’t be made public until the parties convene to finalize any additional revisions and to review the judge’s opinion for any confidential information that needs to be redacted. Potential proposals could include restrictions on Google’s self-preferencing ad auction strategies or allowing third-party ad tech tools to access the same real-time data as Google.
Once the final opinion is released, Google may choose to appeal Brinkema’s ruling that it operates as an illegal ad tech monopoly, similar to its recent appeal regarding a separate ruling on its dominance in the online search market. In that instance, Judge Amit Mehta also refrained from ordering a breakup, instead mandating that Google share data with competitors and modify its practices.
In the ad tech case, the DOJ successfully demonstrated that Google had unlawfully monopolized the markets for publisher ad servers—where publishers manage ad space on their sites—and ad exchanges, which facilitate the auctions for that ad space. The judge concurred that Google had anti-competitively tied its publisher ad server, Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP), with its AdX ad exchange, making it nearly impossible for customers to switch providers and stifling competition. However, Brinkema concluded that the DOJ did not sufficiently prove that Google monopolized the market for advertiser-side tools. Ryan Pauley, president of PMX Global, was deposed during the proceedings.
“We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,” stated Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland. The DOJ Antitrust Division expressed satisfaction with the court’s order for substantial relief and mentioned it was “evaluating appropriate next steps.” DOJ Associate AG Stanley Woodward Jr. noted, “The timing of the Court’s order reflects the tradeoffs between immediate relief and remedies obtained through years of litigation.”
Google has faced antitrust scrutiny from both Democratic and Republican administrations. During the Biden administration, former Senator JD Vance (R-OH) praised Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan for her rigorous examination of tech companies.
This decision marks the conclusion of the district court phase in the third significant tech monopoly case initiated by the federal government in recent years. In addition to the two antitrust cases against Google, the Federal Trade Commission recently lost a monopolization case against Meta, while trials involving federal regulators and Amazon and Apple are anticipated in the near future.
