Judge questions structural remedies in Google ad tech monopoly case

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – The Google ad tech monopoly case is winding down.

On Friday, over the course of several hours, attorneys for Google and the U.S. Department of Justice presented their closing arguments before Judge Leonie Brinkema, who expressed skepticism about the DOJ’s proposed structural remedies — specifically, a forced divestiture of Google’s ad exchange, AdX.

During DOJ attorney Matthew Huppert’s hour-long closing argument, Brinkema said that she was “concerned” about timing — in other words, how quickly structural remedies could go into effect compared to behavioral remedies, especially if Google potentially appeals.

This moment sparked the most pens-to-paper action in the courtroom, as spectators furiously scribbled notes without their phones.

Huppert argued that behavioral remedies in the interim could be complementary, but he asserted they would be “cumbersome,” as Google could “test boundaries every step of the way.”

At any rate, throughout his hour, Huppert stressed that only structural remedies could prevent future monopolization and would be the “cleaner, less risky” option.

Later, though, after the DOJ’s rebuttal to Google’s closing arguments, Brinkema noted that no buyer has been identified for AdX, which could slow down the process, especially if any buyer is met with regulatory scrutiny, she said.

Google attorney Karen Dunn countered that the company’s proposed behavioral remedies, which include offering real-time bid data to rival publisher ad servers, could be implemented within a year. The DOJ said that an AdX divestiture could also occur within that time frame.

Dunn echoed Brinkema’s timeline concern, warning that there is “no evidence there would be a buyer” for AdX, and if it were divested, “customer migration would take years.”

“Lobbing a grenade like divestiture makes no sense,” she asserted.

Dunn also played the AI card, claiming that the technology is “changing competition” and most of those changes have occurred within the last year.

Recently, the judge in the Google search monopoly case said that the “emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case,” after ruling that Google did not have to sell its Chrome web browser but had to share some search data with rivals.

In its rebuttal, the DOJ dismissed comparisons to the search case and that AI would only strengthen Google’s ad business, not hurt it.

Brinkema concluded by stating that her next step is to decide whether to order both structural and behavioral remedies or only behavioral remedies. Then she will issue her ruling. The timeline for that decision remains unclear.