Google pushes back against the DOJ’s plan to break up its ad tech business

Just as the dust begins to settle on the remedies ruling in the massive search monopoly case, the next major legal battle for Google is already here. On Monday, the remedies phase of the U.S. Department of Justice’s case against some of Google’s advertising technologies will begin, and the stakes are incredibly high for publishers, advertisers, and the web as a whole.

The central conflict is stark: the DOJ is calling for a drastic, structural breakup of Google’s ad business, while Google is arguing for a less disruptive solution focused on interoperability.

The DOJ’s drastic proposal: a forced sale

While the court’s initial ruling found fault with some of Google’s ad tech practices, the DOJ’s proposed remedy goes a step further than many expected. The department is calling for the divestiture (a forced sale) of Google Ad Manager, a core tool that helps millions of publishers and advertisers buy and sell ads across the web.

Google argues that this proposal goes far beyond the court’s actual findings and would ultimately harm the very businesses the DOJ claims to be protecting. In a new blog post, the company states that breaking apart its integrated ad tools would make it harder for publishers to monetize their content and more expensive for advertisers to reach new customers, disproportionately hurting small businesses.

Google’s counter-offer: more openness, not a breakup

In response, Google has put forward its own set of remedies that focus on increasing openness and interoperability, rather than breaking up the system. Their proposal includes a few key commitments:

• Increased Transparency: Google is offering to make its real-time bid amounts from its ad exchange (AdX) available to all rival publisher ad servers. This would allow other platforms to compete more effectively with Google’s own Ad Manager.
• More Publisher Control: Google is also proposing to give publishers more direct control over their ad auctions by allowing them to set different minimum prices (price floors) for different bidders.

Google’s argument is that its proposal fully addresses the court’s findings—and is actually what publishers themselves asked for during the trial—without resorting to a drastic and risky breakup of its ad tech business.

This is a classic battle between a regulator seeking a structural remedy and a company proposing a behavioral one. The outcome of this trial will have massive implications for the future of digital advertising and the ability of online publishers (like us) to fund the content you read every day. We’ll be watching this case very closely as it proceeds.