Concerns Emerge in Google Antitrust Proceedings
In scrutinizing the legal proceedings, varying interpretations became evident, particularly regarding monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
The government articulated apprehensions about potential circumvention and frustrations across several sections of the proposed agreements.
Google LLC, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice and seventeen state attorneys general, has submitted a joint proposal for final judgment concerning the ongoing antitrust litigation in the ad technology sphere, which has lingered in the federal district court of Alexandria, Virginia, since 2023.
This joint notice, filed in compliance with a court directive, indicates that the parties engaged collaboratively to articulate their post-trial submissions, aligning with the court’s memorandum opinion from September 2, 2026.
Nonetheless, discrepancies remained, particularly spotlighting areas of contention in monitoring and enforcement in the case identified as U.S. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., Oct. 2, 2026).
Background
In January 2023, the Department of Justice, alongside multiple state attorneys general, lodged a joint complaint, accusing Google of infringing the Sherman Act through monopolistic practices across three distinct markets in digital ad technology.
This litigation coincided with several consolidated multi-district antitrust actions taking place in the Southern District of New York.
By April 2025, the court ruled that Google had contravened Section 2 of the Sherman Act, asserting that it had unjustly acquired and sustained monopoly power in both the open web display publisher ad server and ad exchange markets.
Furthermore, it was determined that Google unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX), violating both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
In September 2025, a bench trial convened to deliberate on potential remedies. The court rendered a remedies opinion a year later, in September 2026, which dismissed the government’s suggestions for structural remedies while endorsing “most” of the proposed behavioral remedies.
The court determined that structural remedies were neither feasible nor necessary, asserting that the behavioral remedies would sufficiently foster competition in the ad tech markets and prevent recidivist anticompetitive conduct by Google.
Scope of the Final Judgment
The Final Judgment, regardless of its conclusive format, is intended to apply exclusively to indirect demand, abstaining from any ad inventory save for open-web display inventory.
Imports related to AdSense, AdMob, DV360, or any other current Google advertising technologies, apart from Google Ad Manager or Google Ads, will be excluded.
The scope encompasses Google, its executives, employees, and any associated entities who are duly notified of the final judgment.
Google has expressed numerous concerns regarding the precise language surrounding prohibited markets, asserting it should not be restricted from competing or operating in any court-defined relevant market outside of the specified limitations.
Additionally, the company contended that the relief measures proposed should not rely on any conclusions affirming that Google Ads competes or possesses market power in any defined relevant market established by the court.
Google has further suggested that each component of mandated relief should extend implementation internationally, adhering to a general timeline not exceeding 24 months.
The government cautioned that the final judgment is not intended to bestow enforcement rights or remedies upon non-parties.
Definitions and Disagreements
Limited disagreements arose concerning definitions. The government sought to define Google explicitly as defendant Google LLC, and to characterize “malfeasance” as “conduct wholly outside the bounds of the law or reasonable disagreement.”
Moreover, the government aimed to clarify that “Publisher Historical Data” should encapsulate all bids for a publisher’s Open-Web Display Ad Inventory, regardless of whether those bids secured the ad impression, along with accompanying bidding details.
Google countered, insisting that the data should solely consist of information generally maintained and disseminated through Google Ad Manager interfaces.
The government maintained that access should not hinge on whether the information had been “previously made available to the Publisher,” demanding that data retain a persistent per impression identifier, fully legible in plaintext.
Google sought to restrict the definitions of “Open-Web Display Ad Inventory,” “Preferred Deal Inventory,” and “Programmatic Guaranteed Inventory” to customers compliant with Google contracts.
Term Agreement
Both parties concurred on a six-year term. However, Google requested that the final judgment specify that provisions related to the Monitor would lapse upon the sixth anniversary of the judgment’s effective date.
Interoperability and Data Sharing
The parties agreed that Google must construct and implement an adapter for AdX-prebid interoperability, ensuring that AdX Publisher Customers receive Real-Time Bids for all Indirect Demand associated with Open-Web Display Inventory.
A divergence surfaced regarding the timeline ensuing the Effective Date, defined elsewhere as 60 days following the Final Judgment’s entry.
Agreement largely prevailed regarding terms for AdX-Publisher Ad Server Interoperability, DFP-Prebid Interoperability, Publisher DFP Data Portability, Publisher AdX Data Portability, and DFP Technical Documentation.
The government, however, registered concerns about circumvention, the provision of pricing information, Google audience data, and the frequency of DFP data file availability.
Google raised issues about the technical feasibility of submitting bid requests, highlighting the disparity in infrastructure between DFP and Qualified Prebid Server Instances.
Additionally, Google suggested continued collaboration with the Monitor to further refine the frequency of DFP data file availability.
Prohibitions Enumerated
The proposed Final Judgment encompasses an array of prohibitions, including:
- Direct bidding, barring Google from creating specific direct bidding integrations between Google Ads and DFP.
- Non-discriminatory bidding, stipulating that AdWords shall not prioritize bidding based on whether a publisher employs AdX or DFP, expanding this provision to encompass all Google ad tech products.
- Non-discriminatory use of data signals, with the government recommending clear terms around the usage of data signals like cookie identifiers.
- Non-discriminatory ad serving for Open-Web Display Ad Inventory according to publishers’ preferences, avoiding discrimination.
- Equitable ad exchange procedures, ensuring that AdX provides uniform information to all Ad Buying Tools when a Publisher submits a real-time bid request.
- Non-discriminatory use of Google first-party data, limiting its use to determine or modify Bid prices only under specified conditions.
- Prevention of restrictions on sharing Real-Time Bids from AdX with non-Google Publisher Ad Servers.
- Prohibiting the reimplementation of First Look or Last Look features for Indirect Demand.
- Precluding Unified Pricing Rules reimplementation for the same category of inventory.
Monitoring and Compliance
Substantial contention persisted regarding the language associated with monitoring, administration, and compliance.
The discourse included disputes regarding the management of Monitor duties and the financial responsibility for the Monitor’s expenses.
Nonetheless, an agreement emerged regarding the formation of a three-member Technical Committee to provide advisory support to the Monitor.
Divergences also arose concerning terms related to Google’s Compliance Officer and compliance inspections.
Anti-reprisal Policy
The government requested that Google establish or maintain an effective anti-reprisal policy, to be disseminated to all employees. Google proposed its alternative wording to this provision.
Disclosure and Confidentiality
The government insisted that Google designate relevant document sections as confidential, adhering to regulatory standards. Such confidentiality designations should dissolve after ten years unless extended.
Google, on the other hand, sought to retain the right to claim protection from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or other relevant legislation.
Enforcement Position
In its defense, Google contended that the government’s entire proposed enforcement section was redundant. The expressed position within the marked-up proposed Final Judgment indicated, “Google omits this section as unnecessary.”
Source link: Vitallaw.com.
