Washington, D.C. — Following the filing of initial remedies proposals in the US v. Google “adtech” remedies proceedings— which will determine how to reopen the market for online advertising technology services to competition after a decade and a half of Google’s illegal monopolization– the American Economic Liberties Project released the following statement.

“Online advertising is the lifeblood of media and commerce today, and we’re encouraged to see the Justice Department propose a bold remedy plan that would unfetter journalists, content creators, innovative startups, and advertisers from Google’s monopoly grip,” said Laurel Kilgour, Research Manager at the American Economic Liberties Project. “The DOJ’s remedies proposal makes clear that only a breakup can rein in a recidivist monopolist like Google. Specifically, it calls for Google to divest its AdX ad exchange network—a common sense proposal Judge Brinkema seems to have already baked into her thinking—and outlines a phased divestiture of Google’s publisher ad server that would open-source its auction logic to reduce barriers to entry and reopen the market to competition.” 

“Google’s proposal, by contrast, commits to temporarily rigging ad auctions a little less—for just three years,” Kilgour added. “This is grossly insufficient to address over a decade of monopolization, especially given that–as Judge Brinkema herself noted during the scheduling hearing–Google’s history of hiding and destroying evidence justifies a profound lack of trust in the company’s willingness to comply with any remedies it designs itself.”

On April 17, 2025, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google illegally monopolized key pieces of the online advertising marketplace, marking the second landmark antitrust trial victory against Google in the last year by the Department of Justice, and the third time Google has been found to be an illegal monopolist since December 2023.

Specifically, Judge Brinkema held that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

In conjunction with divestiture of AdX and DFP, “to ensure that Google does not continue to profit from its unlawfully obtained monopolies while the remedies take effect,” plaintiffs’ proposed remedies would require Google to place in escrow 50% of the net revenues from AdX and DFP from the date of the Court’s judgment against Google until the divestiture is completed. The funds in the escrow account may be used, to “(1) fund the ongoing operation of the industry organization hosting the final publisher ad server auction using the open-source code provided by Google (as required above), or (2) to assist publishers in defraying the costs associated with transitioning away from DFP as their publisher ad server.” To remedy the data and scale advantages Google unlawfully acquired for its ad tech products, plaintiffs’ proposal would prevent Google from misusing data to rig auctions while requiring limited sharing of certain data to level the competitive playing field. Plaintiffs’ remedies also include complementary behavioral remedies to stop specific anticompetitive practices, such as methods of rigging auctions, that were enabled by Google’s illegal tying. A court-appointed monitor would oversee Google’s compliance– and ensure that Google’s employees receive adequate training on how to preserve, rather than destroy, relevant evidence.

Google proposes that it would 1) make AdX real-time bids for open-web display ads available to competitor publisher ad servers; 2) stop imposing Unified Pricing Rules (“UPR”) and instead enable publishers to set different price floors for different bidders, which would let publishers diversify among multiple ad exchanges and buying tools to be less captive to Google; and 3) not rebuild certain auction mechanics, such as “first look” and “last look.” Google also agreed that a monitor could be appointed to assess Google’s compliance for three years.

Supreme Court precedent specifies that an antitrust remedy cannot be limited “to the narrow lane the transgressor has traveled; it must be allowed effectively to close all roads to the prohibited goal, so that [the remedy] may not be bypassed with impunity.” The lead attorney for the Department of Justice pointed out at the scheduling hearing that “there’s a presumption that the behavioral remedy is not sufficient because you can’t anticipate every single way in which a recidivist monopolist, like Google, is going to find a new way,” to harm competition.

The remedies phase will involve additional discovery over the summer to determine what remedy package will serve the essential functions of antitrust remedies, including terminating illegal conduct, preventing recurrence of any similar conduct, reopening a monopolized market to competition, and depriving the wrongdoer of the fruits of its ill-gotten gains. A remedies trial is scheduled to start on September 22.