U.S. Government's Second Google Breakup Attempt Targets Ad Tech Dominance

The Government's Second Bid to Break Up Google: A Push to Sell the Advertising Arm

The U.S. government is gearing up for another pivotal showdown in its antitrust battle against Google. Starting Monday, a federal judge will once again scrutinize the tech giant's dominance, this time focusing on its lucrative advertising technology sector. This renewed legal offensive follows a previous ruling where a different judge acknowledged Google's monopolistic power but ultimately opted against a structural breakup of the company, a decision that evidently left the Department of Justice (DOJ) wanting more.

The stage is set in Alexandria, Virginia, for a roughly two-week trial where legal teams for both Google and the DOJ will present their arguments. The core of this legal sparring revolves around the question of how to effectively restore competition in the ad-tech market, an arena the government unequivocally asserts Google has unlawfully monopolized. This hearing commences mere weeks after Judge Amit Mehta of the D.C. District Court issued a landmark verdict, deeming Google a monopolist in online search. While Judge Mehta proposed remedies, they fell short of the DOJ's aspirations, notably by not mandating the divestiture of the Chrome browser and allowing Google to continue its lucrative arrangements for preferential placement of its services.

A History of Legal Challenges and the Ad-Tech Focus

The DOJ's initial salvo against Google was fired in September 2023, accusing the company of engaging in anti-competitive practices. Central to these allegations were Google's substantial payments to partners, such as Apple, to secure its position as the default search engine on browsers and smartphones. Concurrently, state attorneys general pursued their own antitrust cases, specifically targeting Google's advertising business and its exclusivity agreements.

The narrative gained momentum in 2024 when Judge Mehta confirmed that Alphabet, Google's parent company, was indeed in violation of antitrust laws through its monopolistic hold on search. This led to a separate remedial phase that concluded in early May 2025, with the DOJ advocating for the sale of Chrome and its open-source counterpart, Chromium. Now, the spotlight shifts to Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who is tasked with adjudicating the ad-tech case. Judge Brinkema has a track record of recognizing Google's monopolistic tendencies in this very sector, making her a key figure in this unfolding drama. While she is not bound by Judge Mehta's prior rulings, it's highly probable she will consider them.

The DOJ's Ambitious Demands for Ad-Tech Reform

Despite the previous outcome, the DOJ harbors significant optimism for a different result this time around, particularly because the current proceedings directly target Google's most critical advertising products. The government is urging Judge Brinkema to compel Google to divest AdX, a digital marketplace for programmatic advertising that appears on many websites. The judge has already established that Google unlawfully bundled AdX with its Doubleclick for Publishers (DFP) service, which websites use to sell ad space. Given this prior finding, it's conceivable she will deem the separation of these products a necessary step.

Furthermore, the DOJ wants Google to open-source the auction logic of DFP. If this measure proves insufficient, the court could mandate the sale of DFP itself. These are bold demands, aiming to dismantle a significant portion of Google's digital advertising empire. The government's objective is clear: to dismantle the integrated ecosystem that allows Google to exert undue influence and control over the digital ad market, akin to how a single, dominant distributor might control access to a valuable commodity.

Google's Counterarguments and the Road Ahead

Google, naturally, disputes the necessity of such drastic measures, arguing that the issues identified can be resolved through less disruptive means. The company characterizes the DOJ's proposals as an attempt to unravel past acquisitions that were not themselves found to be anti-competitive. Instead, Google has offered a suite of concessions, including granting third-party ad servers access to real-time bids within AdX (currently limited to DFP), allowing publishers to export their data freely, and abandoning a unified pricing rule that restricted publishers' pricing flexibility.

The tech giant has also signaled its willingness to discontinue the use of its 'First Look' and 'Last Look' auction tactics, which the government claims confer an unfair advantage. However, the legal journey is far from over. Google retains the right to appeal the monopoly ruling itself only after a final verdict on the remedial actions is delivered. This means that even if Judge Brinkema orders a divestiture, the actual implementation could take several years. Ultimately, the scale of her decision will serve as a crucial indicator of the judiciary's readiness to enact profound structural changes upon major technology corporations.