Google Confronts Judicial Scrutiny Over Potential Separation of Ad Tech Division
ALEXANDRIA, United States, Sept 22, 2025 (BSS/AFP) – On Monday, Google is poised to encounter a formidable challenge in federal court, as U.S. government attorneys petition a judge to mandate the disassembly of the tech behemoth’s advertising technology sector.
This lawsuit marks Google’s second such confrontation within the year, following a previous court ruling that dismissed an identical governmental request to dismantle its expansive operations earlier this month.
The focal point of Monday’s proceedings will be Google’s advertising technology “stack,” which comprises essential tools utilized by website publishers to facilitate ad sales and by advertisers to procure them.
In a noteworthy ruling earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema concurred with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), affirming that Google possesses an unlawful dominance over this market.
The upcoming trial aims to ascertain the repercussions and reforms Google must enact to alleviate its monopolistic status.
According to legal documentation, the U.S. government intends to advocate for Google to divest its ad publisher and exchange operations. Additionally, the DOJ plans to seek a prohibition on Google’s operation of an ad exchange for a decade post-divestiture.
In response, Google will contend that these divestiture mandates exceed the court’s previous findings, are technologically impractical, and would adversely affect the market, along with smaller enterprises.
“From the outset, we have maintained that the DOJ’s case misinterprets the intricacies of digital advertising and overlooks the significant evolution of the competitive landscape, which now features numerous new participants,” stated Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.
In a parallel instance in Europe, the European Commission, tasked with upholding antitrust regulations in the EU, recently imposed a fine of 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) on Google for its excessive control over the ad tech sphere.
Brussels mandated specific behavioral changes, but this decision has drawn criticism for being lenient, particularly as previous indications suggested that a divestiture might be necessary.
This remedy phase of the U.S. trial follows an initial trial that established Google’s monopolistic practices. It is anticipated to unfold over the course of a week, with the court scheduled to reconvene for closing arguments a few weeks thereafter.
This trial coincides with a recent decision by a different judge, who dismissed a government request for Google to divest its Chrome browser—a ruling largely interpreted as a triumph for the tech giant.
This latter case, also initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice, determined that Google had established an illegal monopoly in the online search domain.
Rather than requiring a substantial divestiture, Google was instructed to share data with competitors as part of its remedial actions.
The government contended that the divestiture of Chrome was essential, arguing that the browser acts as a pivotal conduit to the internet, generating about one-third of all Google web searches.
Since that judicial decision, shares in Google’s parent company, Alphabet, have surged by over 20 percent.
Judge Brinkema has indicated in pre-trial discussions that she will meticulously consider the outcomes of the search trial when determining her course of action in the ongoing case.
These legal actions are part of a broader, bipartisan government initiative aimed at regulating the world’s most influential technology firms, with five antitrust cases currently pending against such entities in the U.S.
Source link: Bssnews.net.
