Google and DOJ Still Fighting Over How Much Teeth the Ad-Tech Fix Gets

Google's ad-tech business avoided a court-ordered breakup, but the company and the Justice Department remain locked in a dispute over the fine print of how the government's win actually gets enforced, with both sides' competing proposals now sitting before the same federal judge who found Google liable for illegal monopolization in the first place.

The case, United States et al. v. Google, dates to January 2023, when the Justice Department and a coalition of state attorneys general sued Google over what they alleged was more than a decade of serial acquisitions and auction manipulation that let the company dominate the technology stack connecting online publishers and advertisers. Following a 15-day trial, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in April 2025 that Google had violated antitrust law, a decision the Justice Department's own announcement called "a landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square," with officials crediting the Antitrust Division for a ruling it says found Google had "abused its monopoly power."

No breakup, but new rules

The harder question — what to actually do about it — took another year and a half to resolve. In a remedies opinion unsealed in mid-September, Brinkema declined the government's request to force Google to sell off AdX, its ad exchange, instead ordering a package of behavioral changes: Google's ad server must connect with Prebid and accept bids from rival ad servers, the company is barred from giving AdX "first look" or "last look" advantages in open-web auctions, and publishers must be given export rights to their own historical bidding data. A six-year compliance monitor, with direct access to Google's systems and personnel, will oversee the rollout — shorter than the 15 years the government had sought, according to trade-press analysis of the ruling. Google has said it will separately appeal the underlying liability finding even as it complies with whatever remedy is ultimately entered.

Both sides broadly accept that framework. Where they still disagree, per the same analysis of the proposed judgments filed in early October, is almost entirely about timing and teeth. The Justice Department wants Google's rivals connected to AdX within six months of a final order; Google is asking for twelve. The government wants the new rules applied worldwide from day one; Google wants up to two additional years to roll them out internationally, according to separate coverage of the remedy fight. The two sides also disagree on how quickly Google must hand bidding data to publishers merely considering a switch, who nominates the outside monitor, and what standard would trigger contempt proceedings if Google falls short — granular detail that will determine whether a landmark ruling reshapes the industry or simply adds a line to Google's compliance budget.

What's next

With proposed final judgments from both sides now before her, Brinkema is expected to resolve the remaining disputes and enter an enforceable order, after which a 60-day clock begins before the new rules take effect; the case's procedural posture is trackable through the docket on CourtListener. Publishers and rival ad-tech firms, who have waited years for a remedy with real force, are watching the timing fight as closely as the headline result; a judgment that gives Google two extra years abroad and a slow-walked domestic rollout would land very differently than one that forces changes within months. Google, meanwhile, has signaled its appeal of the liability finding will proceed on a separate track, meaning the case could remain unsettled well into 2027 regardless of what Brinkema decides on the remedy's final language.