Google has attained a peculiar milestone in the annals of antitrust history: it has been labeled an illegal monopolist yet continues to maintain its monopoly status unscathed.
On Wednesday, Judge Leonie Brinkema dismissed the Justice Department’s petition to compel Google to divest AdX, a cornerstone of its publisher ad technology ecosystem.
This ruling follows her earlier determination in April 2025 that Google had unlawfully monopolized the marketplace for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges.
Rather than enforcing a structural separation, Google will be subjected to behavioral remedies, which ostensibly include mandates for its ad tech offerings to operate more equitably alongside competitors. The nuanced details of this ruling remain under wraps for the time being.
While we await clarity on the extent of these behavioral mandates, one certainty emerges: there will be no dismemberment of Google’s operations.
A Loftier Aspiration for the Open Internet
A forced divestiture could have revolutionized the competitive dynamics within the ad tech landscape.
Separating AdX from Google’s publisher ad server would have alleviated the most contentious aspect of Google’s dominance—its dual role in controlling essential infrastructure for selling publisher inventory while simultaneously owning the competing exchange striving to monetize this inventory.
An independent AdX could have competed based on its own merits rather than relying on its overwhelming market clout.
Competing supply-side platforms (SSPs) could have contended with it without navigating the complexities posed by Google’s oversight elsewhere in the transaction process.
Publishers may have gained greater leverage, promoting more favorable fees and demand. This, in turn, could have translated into increased revenue for journalism and content creation, rather than yet another financial toll imposed by a Mountain View giant.
“We have created a fascinating incentive system for becoming enormously dominant.”
While behavioral remedies may yield some improvements, they require diligent oversight to ensure compliance.
Google’s resources—comprised of a plethora of lawyers and engineers—are formidable, akin to the population of a small European principality.
Each regulation breeds questions regarding implementation, interpretation, and enforcement. A divestiture would recalibrate incentives, while behavioral remedies primarily compel Google to alter its conduct without fundamentally shifting those incentives.
An Early Gift for Google
Google retains its operational machinery, a factor that holds more strategic significance than the direct revenue generated by AdX.
The company continues to occupy an integrated position across vital segments of publisher monetization and exchange infrastructure, bolstered by the data, scale, and feedback loops engendered by such a setup.
Market analysts were quick to interpret the implications. The share price of Google witnessed a modest uptick of less than 1%.
However, the more telling aspect was its failure to decline markedly. The consensus appears to be that a finding of illegal monopolization is markedly less concerning if the punitive measures do not dismantle the underlying corporate structure.
Advertisers Have a Stake as Well
This litigation has often been framed as a confrontation between Google and publishers alongside SSPs. Yet, it equally affects advertisers.
Robust advertising markets necessitate vigorous competition on both ends of the transaction spectrum. Independent SSPs must achieve sufficient scale to foster innovation.
Publishers require ample revenue to create inventory that appeals to advertisers. Demand-Side Platforms (DSPs) benefit from a diverse supply ecosystem rather than one increasingly dictated by monolithic, vertically integrated enterprises.
A lack of competition ultimately leads to fewer options, diminished negotiating power, and stagnated innovation.
Ironically, advertisers often lament the growing complexity within programmatic advertising. Perhaps a more agentic approach to advertising could mitigate that complexity while preserving buyer autonomy.
A Remedy, Yet Not a Cure
Judge Brinkema’s cautious approach is justifiable. Dismantling intricately intertwined technologies presents significant challenges.
Reports indicate she expressed concerns during the remedies trial about the potential years of appeals that could ensue following a divestiture, as well as uncertainties surrounding who would acquire and manage AdX. A flawed separation could risk substantial disruption.
Nevertheless, antitrust remedies are designed to restore competitive balance following a determination of illegal monopolization.
If courts consistently establish that dominant technological entities have transgressed antitrust laws yet deem that restructuring them may induce too much upheaval, we have erected a troubling incentive structure that rewards monopolistic behavior.
While behavioral remedies may offer a glimmer of hope, achieving true interoperability could redirect spending towards independent platforms and provide publishers with authentic alternatives. Much hinges on the specifics we have yet to unveil.
At this juncture, Google has experienced the increasingly prevalent Silicon Valley repercussion: an official declaration of monopolistic practices coupled with the privilege of retaining its monopoly.
This opinion piece reflects the author’s perspectives and does not necessarily represent the views of The Current, a subsidiary of The Trade Desk, or The Trade Desk itself.
The inclusion of this opinion piece on The Current should not be construed as an endorsement by either The Current or The Trade Desk.
Source link: Thecurrent.com.
