In a significant move to address antitrust concerns, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed that Google divest two of its key advertising technology products: the AdX digital ad marketplace and the DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) platform. This proposal follows a federal judge’s ruling that Google unlawfully maintained monopolistic control over critical segments of the online advertising market.
Background and Judicial Findings
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema recently determined that Google willfully acquired and maintained monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. These platforms are essential for websites and online platforms to manage and sell digital advertisements. The court found that Google’s practices in these areas were anticompetitive, harming both publishers and consumers. However, the judge did not find Google’s acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld to be inherently anticompetitive. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/google-appeal-against-part-us-courts-decision-monopoly-case-2025-04-18/?utm_source=openai))
DOJ’s Proposed Remedies
In response to the court’s findings, the DOJ has outlined a comprehensive set of remedies aimed at dismantling Google’s monopolistic hold on the digital advertising market. The primary components of the DOJ’s proposal include:
1. Divestiture of AdX and DFP: The DOJ recommends that Google sell its AdX digital ad marketplace and the DFP platform. AdX serves as a marketplace where publishers can make their unsold ad space available to advertisers in real-time, while DFP is a platform used by websites to store and manage their digital ad inventory. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-seeks-breakup-googles-ad-tech-products-after-judge-finds-illegal-monopoly-2025-05-06/?utm_source=openai))
2. Prohibition on Operating an Ad Exchange: Post-divestiture, the DOJ suggests that Google should be barred from operating an ad exchange for a period of ten years. This measure aims to prevent the company from re-establishing a dominant position in the ad exchange market during this time frame. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/073faf53cd757249f83d6eddabcb8e56?utm_source=openai))
3. Opening Ad Buying Tools to Third Parties: The DOJ proposes that Google’s ad buying tools, including AdWords, should be made compatible with all third-party ad tech products. This compatibility should be maintained on non-discriminatory terms concerning bidding, matching, ad placement, and information provision, except when explicitly directed otherwise by an advertiser. ([ft.com](https://www.ft.com/content/c0a32e81-e80a-45b9-a58a-411cd0da591e?utm_source=openai))
The DOJ asserts that these remedies are essential to terminate Google’s monopolies, deny the company the benefits of its violations, reintroduce competition into the ad exchange and publisher ad server markets, and guard against future recurrence. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/073faf53cd757249f83d6eddabcb8e56?utm_source=openai))
Google’s Response and Counterarguments
Google has expressed strong opposition to the DOJ’s proposed remedies. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, stated that the DOJ’s additional proposals to force a divestiture of their ad tech tools go well beyond the court’s findings, have no basis in law, and would harm publishers and advertisers. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-seeks-breakup-googles-ad-tech-products-after-judge-finds-illegal-monopoly-2025-05-06/?utm_source=openai))
In a separate filing, Google proposed its own set of remedies, which include:
– Real-Time Bids Availability: Making AdX real-time bids accessible to all third-party ad servers.
– Independent Compliance Oversight: Subjecting Google’s actions to monitoring by an independent compliance observer for a period of three years.
Google contends that these measures are sufficient to address the court’s concerns without necessitating the divestiture of its ad tech products. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/073faf53cd757249f83d6eddabcb8e56?utm_source=openai))
Broader Antitrust Context
This case is part of a broader regulatory trend targeting Google’s market influence. In a separate antitrust decision, Google was found to hold an illegal monopoly in online search. The DOJ has also proposed that Google sell its Chrome browser to address these concerns. Additionally, a federal jury in 2023 determined that Google’s Play Store constitutes an illegal monopoly, leading to ongoing legal battles over its commission system and app store policies. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/a1e4446c4870903ed05c03a2a03b581e?utm_source=openai))
Implications for the Digital Advertising Industry
The outcome of this legal battle could have profound implications for the digital advertising industry. If the DOJ’s proposed remedies are implemented, it could lead to increased competition and innovation in the ad tech space, potentially benefiting publishers, advertisers, and consumers. However, the divestiture of key components of Google’s ad tech business may also lead to significant operational changes and challenges for the company.
The trial to determine the appropriate remedies is scheduled to begin on September 22, 2025, in Alexandria, Virginia. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema will oversee the proceedings, which will evaluate the proposed remedies and their potential impact on the market. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-sets-google-ad-tech-remedies-trial-september-2025-05-02/?utm_source=openai))
Conclusion
The DOJ’s proposal to compel Google to divest its AdX and DFP platforms marks a significant step in the ongoing efforts to address antitrust concerns in the digital advertising market. As the legal proceedings unfold, the tech industry and stakeholders will closely monitor the developments, given the potential for substantial changes in the competitive landscape of online advertising.
