Google's digital ads empire faces potential breakup as antitrust remedy trial kicks off

The remedy phase of the antitrust case against Google over its digital advertising technology opened Monday in a Virginia federal court, with prosecutors pressing a structural remedy to restore competition in a market the government says the company dominates. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema is overseeing two weeks of hearings that will consider whether Google should divest its AdX ad exchange or pursue other remedies to loosen its grip on the online ads market.

DOJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood argued that Google's proposed remedy—keeping the ad-tech stack largely intact while adding data-sharing and interoperability conditions—would not restore competition, and she urged a forced sale of AdX to break up the monopoly. Wood described Google as a “recidivist monopolist” and said “the means to cheat are buried in computer codes and algorithms” during opening statements. The two-week remedy phase is part of a broader case that began in 2023 when the Biden administration’s Justice Department and a coalition of states filed suit.

Google, led by CEO Sundar Pichai, defended its approach, arguing that a breakup would harm advertisers and publishers by fragmenting an integrated platform used to buy and sell ads. Google’s legal team has proposed remedies designed to maintain access to its tools while ensuring compatibility with rivals’ services. Karen Dunn, the company’s lead attorney, called the DOJ’s push for a sale “radical and reckless” and warned that a forced breakup could disrupt the entire ad-tech stack.

Dunn has emphasized that Google’s proposed remedy would be implemented in a way that preserves the functionality of its advertising tools while inviting interoperability with competing platforms. In her view, the broader harm would come from dismantling a system that many advertisers rely on to reach audiences efficiently. The argument underscores a central tension of the remedy phase: whether to preserve the integrated ad-tech ecosystem or to unwind elements that the government views as bottlenecks to competition.

Brinkema’s remedy hearings come after she ruled in April that Google violated the Sherman Act by dominating the online publisher ad server market and the ad-exchange market that connects buyers and sellers. The decision found two illegal monopolies within Google’s digital advertising operations, though it left the shape of any remedies to be determined in the remedy phase. Google has said it intends to appeal that ruling, though an appeal cannot proceed until the remedy phase concludes.

In a separate but concurrent line of antitrust action, the court earlier this month rejected the DOJ’s broader push in a separate case targeting Google’s search dominance, opting instead for data-sharing remedies rather than a forced breakup of Chrome. Dunn referenced that decision in her push against a breakup in the digital ads case, arguing that the Chrome outcome shows the judiciary can resolve competition concerns without dismantling core products.

Experts expected to testify during the remedy phase include a former executive from News Corp and executives from the Daily Mail and media group Advance Local, reflecting the case’s potential impact on publishers and media brands that rely on Google’s ad technology. The testimony is expected to help define how any remedy would affect publishers, advertisers, and the economics of online advertising.

The case was originally brought in 2023 by the Biden administration’s Justice Department and a coalition of states, seeking structural changes to the way Google operates in digital advertising. The remedy phase is a critical step in determining whether Google must divest or modify its AdX exchange and related ad-tech tools. Google has signaled it will pursue all legal avenues, including appeal, if necessary, to protect its ad-tech stack and revenue model.

Analysts say the outcome could have lasting implications for the digital advertising ecosystem, including how ad dollars flow through exchanges and how much control publishers and advertisers wield over the tools they use each day. Whatever form the remedy takes, the court’s decision will shape competition in one of the most lucrative and scrutinized sectors in business and markets today.

The remedy phase is ongoing, and Brinkema’s final decision on the merits remains anticipated for later in the process. If a forced divestiture of AdX is approved, it would represent a significant shift in how digital advertising operates, potentially constraining Google’s ability to steer where ads appear and how revenue is distributed across the ecosystem. For advertisers, publishers, and technologists, the next weeks of testimony and legal argument will help determine whether the ad-tech market can function with greater competition or remains tightly wound around a single platform.