Judge signals skepticism of Google ad tech breakup at closing arguments

Choose Leonie Brinkema expressed appreciable hesitation about ordering Google to divest its promoting change throughout closing arguments on November 21, 2025, signaling that behavioral treatments might emerge as the popular answer to deal with the corporate’s unlawful monopolization of digital promoting markets.

The Japanese District of Virginia federal court docket listening to marked the conclusion of the treatments section following Brinkema’s April ruling that Google violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing writer advert server and advert change markets. The choose’s questions throughout the November 21 proceedings targeted closely on implementation timelines and sensible realities, suggesting she views the case’s business urgency as paramount.

Time is a essential issue, Brinkema emphasised to Justice Division attorneys. The business panorama modifications quickly, and predictions about market situations 5 years from now stay unsure, she famous throughout the listening to, as reported by Courthouse News Service.

The choose raised issues about Google’s near-certain attraction, noting the corporate faces an “inconceivable state of affairs” provided that publishers and rival advertising technology companies are pursuing damages claims primarily based on her monopoly findings. Divestiture treatments would probably not be enforceable throughout the appeals course of, doubtlessly leaving markets in limbo for years, she noticed.

DOJ advocates structural change

Matthew Huppert, main the Justice Division’s closing argument, characterised Google’s decade-long conduct as systematically dismantling two promoting expertise markets very important to the open web. He rejected what he referred to as Google’s “benevolent dictator” narrative, arguing the corporate’s witnesses—all compensated by Google—testified that solely Google can function promoting instruments with correct high quality, privateness, and safety requirements, according to Check My Ads coverage of the proceedings.

The federal government’s proposal facilities on forcing Google to sell AdX, its promoting change the place publishers pay a 20% price to entry demand from advertisers. Reuters reported that Huppert argued nothing in need of a pressured sale would convey “a brighter, extra aggressive future for the open net.”

The court docket’s treatment must utterly eradicate Google’s illegally acquired monopolies, Huppert advised the court docket, citing Supreme Court docket precedent requiring “root and department” elimination of anticompetitive conduct, Reuters reported.

Huppert warned that behavioral treatments would entangle the court docket in countless litigation over technical particulars. He offered an instance from Google’s proposal about latency: if publishers use competing methods, Google guarantees to not “deliberately” introduce delays that do not exist as technical actuality. But when AdX sends bids 400 milliseconds slower, courts would want to find out whether or not that was intentional or simply technical actuality—requiring repeated litigation, Check My Ads noted.

Google’s rational financial incentives will drive the corporate to check each boundary and punctuation mark in any behavioral treatment, Huppert argued, according to the coverage. He concluded by invoking the inscription on the Alexandria courthouse entrance about justice delayed being justice denied.

Complexity can’t confer immunity from antitrust enforcement, Huppert warned. If Google succeeds in avoiding structural reduction as a result of technical complexity, it might set a harmful precedent for large tech corporations, Check My Ads reported.

Choose Brinkema interrupted Huppert early in his presentation, asking how shortly treatments might take impact—a query that might dominate a lot of the day’s proceedings, the Monopoly Report newsletter noted.

Google defends integration advantages

Karen Dunn, Google’s lead counsel, opened by immediately addressing Brinkema’s timeline issues. All of Google’s behavioral proposals may very well be carried out inside 12 months, apart from programmatic assured and personal offers integration with prebid, which might take 18 months, she stated off script at the beginning of her closing, according to the Monopoly Report.

Divestiture is senseless when each events considerably agree on behavioral treatments, Dunn argued, characterizing the Justice Division’s structural proposal as “lobbing a grenade,” Check My Ads reported.

The federal government’s proposals mirror mistrust not merely of Google however of the judicial course of itself, Dunn advised, according to Check My Ads. Google’s standing as a publicly traded firm ensures accountability to court docket orders, making elaborate structural treatments pointless, she argued.

Reuters reported that Dunn cited a 2004 Supreme Court docket ruling stating that “lawfully acquired monopoly energy is the inspiration of the American financial system.” A pressured breakup could be technically troublesome and end in an extended, painful transition that might hurt clients, she argued.

Dunn referenced testimony from Stephanie Layser, whom she referred to as “The Google Slayer,” whereas questioning whether or not Layser has current writer expertise, Check My Ads noted. She additionally referenced complaints from Day by day Mail’s Matthew Wheatland, utilizing the identical terminology that characterised his cross-examination throughout trial.

The Google legal professional closed by questioning whether or not a messy divestiture was actually essential when each events agreed on behavioral options, according to Check My Ads.

The Monopoly Report observed that Dunn pointed to Google Adverts transactions more and more flowing via YouTube somewhat than open-web show—what the e-newsletter characterised as Google’s “thinly-veiled menace” that the corporate may cease bidding on open-web show if pressured to divest AdX.

Court docket questions sensible implementation

Choose Brinkema’s skepticism centered on business actuality and the quickly altering business panorama. She famous the business’s dynamic nature and the specter of synthetic intelligence, questioning whether or not treatments ordered right now would stay related years from now, Check My Ads reported.

Google will nearly definitely attraction, Brinkema noticed, according to Courthouse News Service. Reuters reported that she famous structural treatments would probably not be simply enforceable throughout an attraction.

The choose pressed Justice Division attorneys about figuring out potential consumers for AdX, Reuters reported. Even when Microsoft expressed curiosity, it might create comparable antitrust issues and require separate regulatory evaluate inflicting extra delays, she famous. The divestiture proposal stays pretty summary whereas a court docket order should be concrete, Brinkema noticed, according to Check My Ads.

The events have almost reached settlement on monitoring preparations, with one remaining dispute about whether or not the Justice Division or Google submits monitor candidates whereas the opposite aspect selects, Check My Ads reported.

DOJ rebuts Google arguments

Julia Tarver Wooden delivered the Justice Division’s rebuttal, arguing that behavioral treatments would slowly erode monopoly energy with out terminating it. Given the time urgency and market uncertainty, the Justice Division pursues structural treatments that really free markets, she stated, according to Check My Ads.

When Brinkema requested why the Justice Division hasn’t recognized a possible purchaser, Wooden responded that prematurely figuring out consumers earlier than a court docket order could be inappropriate, Check My Ads reported.

Google witness testimony about divestiture being too complicated contradicts the corporate’s personal inside paperwork—a sample the court docket noticed throughout the legal responsibility section, Wooden emphasised, according to the coverage.

Wooden addressed synthetic intelligence’s impression on publishers. Google claims to steward the open net but locations AI Overviews on the prime of search outcomes so customers needn’t click on via to writer web sites—the AI apocalypse that WikiHow CEO Elizabeth Douglas referenced in her testimony, Wooden argued, Check My Ads reported.

This case deserves structural treatments greater than nearly some other, Wooden argued, as a result of Google’s monopolies got here not from being higher however from dishonest, according to the coverage.

The proceedings symbolize a essential inflection level for the open web and antitrust enforcement towards huge tech, with the world watching, Wooden stated. She invoked the braveness of business witnesses who testified towards Google regardless of enterprise dangers, urging the court docket to point out comparable braveness in addressing the underlying illness somewhat than signs, Check My Ads reported.

Google maintains give attention to behavioral treatments

Dunn’s surrebuttal argued that the Justice Division failed to fulfill the heavy burden required for divestiture, according to Check My Ads. Courts have by no means ordered divestiture to treatment tying preparations, illegal combos, complicated two-sided expertise markets, or conditions that take away opponents from competitors, she argued.

Google’s search advertiser base was partially acquired lawfully, so the Justice Division hasn’t sufficiently demonstrated the causal connection essential to justify divestiture, Dunn contended, the coverage noted.

Returning to belief arguments, Dunn drew parallels to the Microsoft antitrust case. If untrustworthiness alone justified divestiture, Microsoft’s structural treatment would not have been reversed on attraction, she advised, according to Check My Ads.

Business observers observe choose’s skepticism

Ari Paparo, founding father of Marketecture and author of a book documenting Google’s advertising practices, attended the proceedings and instantly assessed Brinkema’s place. “Simply acquired out of closing arguments on the Google DOJ AdTech trial. My important takeaway is the choose confirmed lots of skepticism in regards to the timing and advantages of an AdX spin out. Sufficient to sway me it is not going to occur,” he posted on X.

In his newsletter analyzing the proceedings, Paparo wrote that he entered the day pondering Choose Brinkema’s resolution was a coin flip between ordering AdX divestiture or settling for behavioral treatments. After listening to arguments, he now believes Google will keep away from a spinout.

The dynamics driving this consequence are clear, Paparo defined. A lot cash is at stake in civil instances—with treble damages—and people instances base their findings on Brinkema’s ruling, that means Google will not settle regardless of how helpful it may appear. The corporate will battle to the Supreme Court docket if essential, leading to years the place AdX and Google Advert Supervisor stagnate, he wrote in the newsletter.

The choose acknowledges open online advertising’s decline and synthetic intelligence’s menace, making time important, Paparo noted.

AdExchanger’s coverage emphasised Brinkema’s concern about business actuality, particularly how shortly treatments might take impact given promoting expertise’s tempo of innovation and synthetic intelligence’s potential to reshape web promoting.

Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content material Subsequent, announced on X earlier than the proceedings: “Hey press I do know lots happening. However closing arguments in USvGoogle for breakup of Google’s adtech biz are actually tmw. This was pushed again a number of days for legit private and Court docket causes. Because the Court docket discovered large harms to publishers globally, glad you are exhibiting up.”

Technical implementation particulars debated

The Justice Division argued that Google’s timeline descriptions are deceptive. The federal government requested a 15-month cut-off date for AdX divestiture after the ruling, with structural treatments’ aggressive advantages showing on a timeline akin to Google’s 12-15 month behavioral treatments implementation, Check My Ads reported.

The Monopoly Report revealed a number of noteworthy particulars from the proceedings. Each side are effectively underway choosing a monitor who will guarantee no matter treatments are ordered get correctly administered. This monitor will rent technical advisors to help with compliance oversight.

Google accepted a six-year monitoring interval, the newsletter noted—double the corporate’s authentic three-year proposal.

As a substitute of open-sourcing public sale logic, Google now proposes creating auditable log outputs much like stack traces, permitting publishers to validate why advertisements have been served specific methods, according to the Monopoly Report.

The Justice Division confirmed humor throughout proceedings, the newsletter observed. As an instance Google’s AI Overviews impact on publishers, they displayed a slide with the search time period “how you can monopolize a market.”

Resolution timeline and subsequent steps

Choose Brinkema expects to situation her ruling in January or February, the Monopoly Report predicted. Nevertheless, she joked at the beginning that she’s undecided this represents the final set of arguments, Check My Ads noted.

The choose concluded by acknowledging glorious advocacy from either side and expressing appreciation for civility in such high-stakes litigation, according to Check My Ads. She should resolve the core situation—structural and behavioral treatments, or behavioral solely—then craft the order. Even concerning behavioral treatments, important variations stay between the proposals.

The writer case in New York will start across the identical time, the Monopoly Report noted. The Texas case awaits Virginia’s ruling earlier than continuing, with developments anticipated in spring. The European Union case supposedly is not ready for Virginia as a result of sovereignty, however really is, suggesting delays till early subsequent yr.

Broader context and implications

Check My Ads emphasized the proceedings’ monumental stakes. The Justice Division’s reminder about trial significance can’t be overstated—weak treatments might embolden huge tech and create a disaster of confidence in U.S. antitrust legislation’s skill to guard markets from abuse.

No matter consequence, corporations will forge forward with non-public litigation for harms suffered. Google should rethink partaking in questionable conduct like rolling out self-serving options or making delicate modifications clients neither need nor request, the organization noted.

Check My Ads concluded: “Consider right now not as the top, however as a brand new starting.”

Timeline

Abstract

Who: U.S. District Choose Leonie Brinkema presided over closing arguments between Division of Justice attorneys led by Matthew Huppert and Julia Tarver Wooden and Google’s authorized group led by Karen Dunn. The case includes state attorneys common alongside federal prosecutors, with implications for publishers, advertisers, and promoting expertise corporations globally.

What: Closing arguments within the treatments section of the Justice Division’s antitrust case towards Google offered essentially completely different visions for addressing the corporate’s unlawful monopolization of writer advert server and advert change markets. The DOJ seeks structural treatments together with AdX divestiture and open-sourcing of public sale logic, whereas Google proposes behavioral restrictions together with real-time bid sharing and elimination of discriminatory practices inside 12-18 months.

When: The November 21, 2025 closing arguments adopted Choose Brinkema’s April 2025 legal responsibility ruling and a September 2025 treatments trial. Brinkema indicated her resolution would arrive in January or February 2026, although she famous extra arguments may happen earlier than last judgment.

The place: The Japanese District of Virginia federal court docket in Alexandria heard arguments, with implications extending globally given Google’s promoting expertise dominance. Associated proceedings are underway in New York, Texas, and the European Union.

Why: The proceedings matter as a result of they’ll decide whether or not Google should divest core promoting expertise belongings or merely modify enterprise practices, setting precedents for expertise antitrust enforcement and affecting billions of {dollars} in writer income, advertiser spending, and promoting expertise firm competitors. Choose Brinkema’s skepticism about divestiture timing and enforceability throughout appeals suggests behavioral treatments might emerge regardless of Justice Division arguments that solely structural modifications can restore real market competitors and forestall re-monopolization.