The DOJ faces growing calls to coordinate Google antitrust remedy efforts 

The DOJ is developing remedy proposals to counter Google’s market power in search and ad tech, both of which were ruled monopolies during the last 12 months, with MOW now calling for conjoined technical oversight of the two cases. 

Currently, the remedies in each case are under development and will be overseen by separate technical committees, according to MOW, which is now calling for these to be merged, citing the need for a holistic approach to market correction. 

In antitrust cases, a technical committee is a group of independent experts appointed by the court or a regulatory body, such as the DOJ, to oversee compliance with a settlement or remedy, particularly regarding technical aspects of a case. 

MOW claimed a holistic strategy is critical due to the complexity and interdependence of Google’s business lines, and that uncoordinated remedies risk missing structural issues that sustain monopoly power.

The group supports existing DOJ proposals but cites Justice Brinkema’s ruling in the ad tech case that Google’s control of AdWords demand fuels its monopoly in ad exchanges. It thus calls for additional steps to empower publishers, including control over inventory auctions, transparency in pricing data, and restrictions on Google’s use of its owned-and-operated properties to gain bidding advantages.

MOW’s Tim Cowen, also chairman of the antitrust practice at Preiskel & Co., argued that there is potential for Google to discriminate in its ad tech practices through technical means, even after divestiture, citing how its purchase of DoubleClick enabled it to leverage its position in the search market to dominate the display advertising market. 

“It blocked access to the DoubleClick ID so that third parties would become dependent on it,” he told Digiday, explaining the intricacies by which the online giant was able to dominate the market. “Then what it did was to give itself the first look at bids on the exchange… when that didn’t prove to be profitable enough, it gave itself a last look as well.” 

Proposed brews 

The DOJ proposes forcing Google to sell its Chrome browser, end billions in default‐search payments to handset manufacturers, license its search index and user data to rivals for a decade, and potentially divest Android and enforce a choice‑screen mandate to restore competition 

Google countered these breakup demands by outright opposing the forced sale of Chrome and suggesting limited, targeted contract reforms and broad data sharing, or long-term oversight.

Meanwhile, the DOJ’s proposed remedy targets Google’s ad tech monopoly through a three-phase plan: first, mandating real-time data access for rivals via Prebid; second, opening Google’s DFP auction logic to open-source; and third, fully divesting its ad server DFP and AdX under court supervision. 

Following the divestiture, Google would be prohibited from operating an ad exchange for 10 years. Additionally, 50% of AdX and DFP net revenues would be placed into escrow to support the publisher transition and independent auction development. Google’s counter-proposals recommended more limited reforms to avoid a breakup, including real-time AdX data access, ending Unified Pricing Rules, and forgoing auction advantages. 

Yesterday’s war?

At Advertising Week New York last year, industry leaders questioned whether the DOJ’s proposed breakup of Google’s ad tech would meaningfully shift the landscape. Some argue that Google is already one step ahead of regulators, citing its dominance as a deterrent to competition and suggesting that remedies may be too late to matter. 

Many are divided on whether a breakup would hurt or ultimately heal the ad tech ecosystem, with some arguing the only effective means of hamstringing Google would be a huge fine. “I think the DOJ is now fighting yesterday’s war. No matter what the result is, the damage is done, and by the time they have the remedy, the environment is going to be so different,” said Justin Choi, CEO of Nativo, on one Advertising Week panel.  

MOW’s Cowen further claimed that without adequate, conjoined oversight of the technical remedies, Google can take measures to evade any effective market intervention. “The idea of the remedy is that the divested entity [either AdX, Chrome, or DFP] has no interest in Google,” he said, adding that many contractual remedies – not to mention effective ongoing oversight –  are additionally required to have the desired effect. 

Justice Amit Mehta, the presiding judge in the search antitrust case, is on course to offer a ruling on remedies in early August. Google may appeal the judgment within 30 days, potentially extending proceedings through 2027. 

Meanwhile, the remedies phase of the ad tech antitrust case is scheduled to begin on September 22.