Assessing the most likely outcomes of Google’s pivotal ad tech antitrust trial

Examples include the business-critical search case facing a forced sale of Chrome, and in addition to this case which Google lost, but is in the process of appealingis its ongoing ad tech antitrust trial where the chairman’s verdict came down Judge Leonie Brinkema was expected for weeks. Justice Department lawyers are pushing for a forced divestment of its sales ad tech tools. Many expect the ruling to go against Google, prompting (yet another) appeals process with looming uncertainty dividing opinion over how best to approach the resulting fallout.

However, Digiday Research asks the questions below, with sources divided on whether material changes can be felt in the foreseeable future.

• Has Google really outwitted its naysayers and ad tech is now on the radar of its strategic priorities?
• What are the most effective means of dealing with competition issues?

First, it’s worth revisiting the Justice Department’s case. Lawyers there argue that Google took advantage of its massive presence in the market, i.e. their multifaceted ad tech toolkits, to their advantage, with publishers being the main victims in such a scenario (see video).

As a result, the DOJ advocates for the forced sale of the online advertising giant’s retail advertising tools, such as AdX and Google Ad Manager. But as recent findings from Digiday Research show, the industry is divided on whether such a sell-off would make a difference. Some publishers even fear such a wholesale change to business-critical ad technology it can hurt their monetization efforts.

Megan Gray of GrayMatters, Law & Policy previously told Digiday, “Google saw the writing on the wall,” adding that such realization is at the heart of its Privacy Sandbox efforts, where the Google Chrome team is proposing to move ad serving. and the supplier platform works into its web browser, with many interpreting this as an offer to offset the impact of any proposed breakup in the Brinkem case.

Although it is worth considering how this would affect the sanction pursued by the Department of Justice in the event of a concurrent search, i.e. forced sale of Chrome, given how it would theoretically cut Google off from the browser’s more than three billion data users and all the data/consent signals it feeds them. This could seriously throw a wrench in any preemptive placement the online advertising giant is attempting.

Representatives of the industry lobby group Movement for an Open Web, a vocal critic of Google, agree with Gray’s assessment, saying Google is using a veil of privacy to mask its anti-competitive interests, adding any remedies from Brinkema (should she find Google) must include the sale of AdX.

“As an owner, supplier and customer of its ad exchange, I think you’ll find there’s quite a lot of discussion that AdX needs to be sold to get rid of the conflict of interest,” he claims. Tim Cowenchairman of the antimonopoly office Preiskel & Co. and added that this alone “will not get rid of the problem”.

Cowen and several other sources consulted by Digiday noted that even in the event of a forced AdX divestment, the ad exchange’s largest customer would be the industry’s largest demand platform (Google’s DV 360).

Further assurances are required

One publisher-side source, who spoke to Digiday on condition of anonymity to preserve his employer’s relationship with Google, noted how an isolated sale of AdX or GAM could have a counterintuitive impact. “We already know that DV 360 directs the vast majority of spending to services owned and operated by Google, [with a divestiture] may speed up the process even more,” the source added, noting how such a scenario would absolve the DSP of potential conflict of interest allegations.

MOW’s legal counsel, Cowen, argues that any other potential remedy prescribed by Judge Brinkema would require additional railings to ensure a real impact on the market. “What you need is a ban on discrimination in the advertising exchange that is.” [theoretically] be separated [from the rest of Google]”, he adds. “Even if it was in someone else’s hands, it still has an interest in favoring Google and giving it better terms.”

Paul Bannister, chief strategy officer at Raptive, goes on to note how Google’s sales force can (ironically) take a load off. likely the second biggest millstone hanging around his neck in the 1920s: the Privacy Sandbox, Google’s effort to meet its privacy obligations by removing third-party cookies from Chrome while fending off anti-competitive charges.

“First, Chrome will create a ‘cookie choice’ popup very similar to Apple’s ATT challenge,” he wrote in early January 2025. Post on LinkedIn. “This is essentially the end of cookie support. Chrome will also give up Privacy Sandbox. They won’t announce anything, but they will slowly stop building things. Sandbox is of limited benefit to Google’s O&O business. Even if the Sandbox is flawed, publishers need all the tools [sic] they can fight signal loss and losing Sandbox will hurt.”

Some worry that Google may have outwitted its antitrust foes, a prospect not lost on speakers at the recent Advertising Week conference in New York, where speakers aired concerns that the Justice Department “is fighting in yesterday’s war,” notes how Google may be happy to give up its lowest-revenue-generating ad arm.

after all Alphabet’s latest quarterly earnings report shows how “Google Network Member Properties” — the display advertising industry that many consider a unit for its ad tech — generated $7.5 billion in Q3 2024, compared to YouTube’s $8.9 billion. While these are hefty numbers, comparing search revenue over the same period ($49.4 billion); this may indicate where Google’s top priorities lie.

Rob Webster, founder of marketing consultancy TAU Marketing Solutions, weighs in on any potential remedies ordered by Judge Brinkema, saying Google would likely put up the least resistance to a court order to sell AdX and GAM.

Any such opposition, in his view, would most likely be for performance reasons only, as it would have minimal impact on his more strategic priorities, i.e. maintaining search ad market share and growing media traffic on YouTube. “If they think the DOJ will accept it, they will, and it will happen relatively quickly,” he says, predicting that any such sale would be done within a year.

However, all sources consulted in research for this article say simply selling these tools would fall well short of the Justice Department’s goal of redressing the imbalance in how marketers’ advertising dollars are distributed, and Webster says achieving such a goal requires further curbs on dominant options Google media measurement.

They argue that Google has unmatched signal measurement capabilities due to its possession of massively scaled consumer tools, such as the Android mobile operating system or the Chrome web browser, and several APIs that plug directly into advertisers’ campaign systems. That’s in addition to its ownership of YouTube, where ad space can only be bought through Google tools like its DSP, with many predicting it will be forced to open up that opportunity to third parties as part of any remedies.

Claim the ‘crown jewels?’

Webster refers to these tools as the “crown jewels” of Google’s media empire, because these levers give it a unique ability to measure ad performance. and go to resource for direct response advertisers. “Things like this give Performance Max [Google’s algorithmically-driven ‘black box’ offering that regularly gets called out as a standout revenue driver by its executive team] a huge win… the measurement control means the technology stack is untouchable,” he adds.

Asking Google to list these “crown jewels” would make Alphabet executives take a much deeper breath, Webster said, and likely spark a more determined fight, saying that this and the forced opening of its conversion API would further democratize ad measurement.

According to James Rosewell, the founder of MOW, lawmakers around the world should push Google to make its measurement capabilities open source because such joint action would have a better chance of success. “Rather than having a company with proprietary code, it could be open,” Rosewell says, adding that such a scenario would act as “the seed of a new market for innovative products in the space.”

However, such a theoretical scenario would take years (at best) to come to fruition, with Webster confident that Google would surely throw the full force of its vast legal defense team into resisting any such machinations. Meanwhile, Rosewell doubts legal teams have the resources necessary to achieve such a goal. “I don’t think it could happen because I don’t think lawyers have the imagination,” he adds.

Of course, Google defends itself resolutely, according to the local lawyers its advertising technology is the cornerstone of emerging subsectors of the media industrywith the Department of Justice’s atavistic claims of days past, ergo no longer fit for purpose.

But most agree that Google’s battles with the government are far from over, regardless of newfound friends in high places.