IP Law Daily, TECHNOLOGY/INTERNET NEWS: Remedies phase in Google ad tech antitrust trial winds down with dueling proposals, (Nov 4, 2025)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

The government would require Google to divest its ad exchange, but Google presses for strictly behavioral changes.

The Department of Justice and 17 state attorneys general (together the government) and Google filed November 3, 20205, their final briefs after the remedies phase in the government’s case which proved earlier in the liability phase that Google violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to its practices in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market and in tying its publisher ad server and ad exchange. The government’s Post-Trial Brief argues that structural relief of divestiture is required to restore competition to relevant advertising markets and its Proposed Final Judgment requires Google to divest ad exchange (AdX) and to potentially divest its publisher ad server (DFP). Google filed its own Post-Trial Remedies Brief and Proposed Final Judgment, arguing for the imposition of only behavioral remedies and against the relief proposed by the government as unnecessary and harmful to consumers (United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2025)).

Background. In January 2023, the Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general, ultimately seventeen in total, jointly filed a complaint alleging that Google violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing digital Ad Technology products in three distinct Ad Tech markets. The action paralleled consolidated multi-district antitrust actions in the Southern District of New York.

In April 2025, the court specifically determined that “Google has 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 has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.” Judge Brinkema added that the court would set a briefing schedule and hearing date to determine the appropriate remedies.

On May 2, 2025, the court ordered an equitable remedies trial to begin on September 22, 2025. In adopting the parties’ Joint Proposal for the adjudication of equitable remedies, the only remedies at issue, the court noted the predicate event for the trial would be the parties’ identification of proposed equitable remedies.

Prior to the remedies trial the parties each made initial proposals for appropriate remedies. The government made clear that any remedy required going beyond a mere prohibition of the unlawful scheme and therefore effective structural relief meant divesting an asset that Google used in the marketplace. Google countered that divestiture of its open-web display publisher ad servers and open-web display ad exchanges would not only be unlawful, but also unworkable. Now, after the trial, both sides motioned again, requesting the remedies they see as fitting based on the evidence.

Government’s post remedies trial motions. The government contends in its Post-Trial Brief that structural changes to Google’s ad tech monopolies are the only remedies that will restore competition. Only structural changes will: (1) terminate Google’s monopolies and deny it the fruits of its unlawful conduct; (2) give market participants confidence that fair competition is the new order of the day; and (3) permit natural market forces to shape competition moving forward. In brief, the structural remedies called for—the divestiture of AdX, the open-sourcing of DFP’s Final Auction Logic, and, if necessary, the divestiture of DFP Remainder.

The government argues that relying on behavioral remedies, as Google proposes, will “mire the Court and the parties in a cumbersome process of overseeing competition-by-decree, requiring Google to act contrary to its economic incentives and past behavior, and the Court and Plaintiffs to assume the ongoing role of ad tech bureaucrats.”

The government’s Proposed Final Judgment calls for the court to order Google to:

1. divest AdX;

2. refrain from reentering the market for Open-Web Display Ad Exchanges during the Supervision Period;

3. separate and provide via an open-source license DFP’s Final Auction Logic;

4. refrain from controlling or unduly influencing the Open-Source Auction during the Supervision Period;

5. if determined to be necessary, divest DFP Remainder and refrain from reentering the market for Open-Web Display Publisher Ad Servers during the Supervision Period;

6. refrain from engaging in certain conduct that distorts the competitive process in the relevant markets;

7. provide certain data and APIs that foster transparency, customer choice, and competition; and (8) disgorge certain profits Google receives from its unlawfully acquired monopolies.

It also seeks the appointment of both a Divestiture Trustee to oversee the divestitures and a Monitor to ensure that Google complies with all its obligations under the Final Judgment.

Google’s post remedies trial motions. Google argues that the government’s request for legally unprecedented and unsupported divestitures (including Google’s take that the government’s proposed Open-Source Auction is a de-facto divestiture) are technically and commercially unworkable. Google says the potential consequences of a court order remedy that does not work would be enormous and pose existential risks to small and medium businesses in a market that currently handles 55 million bid requests per second. It cites myriad other complications, including the changes to competition in the ad tech ecosystem already underway courtesy of AI, as reasons for rejecting the government’s proposed structural remedies.

In contrast, Google describes its proposed remedies as:

Designed based on the guidance of engineers intimately familiar with the products at issue and crafted to ensure access, choice, neutrality, and accountability. The remedies are tailored to the Court’s liability opinion while minimizing harm to consumers and the ad tech ecosystem. And Google has now revised its proposed remedies to address newly voiced concerns, like transparency, to demonstrate Google’s commitment to compliance.

Google argues that its proposed behavioral remedies respond to the court’s liability findings and restore competition while minimizing harm to consumers. The Post-Trial Remedies Brief distills Google’s proposals into two main categories: (1) Give rivals equal access to AdX Real-Time Bids; and (2) Enable publishers to put prebid between AdX and DFP.

The implementation of these changes is set out in very technical detail in Google’s Proposed Final Judgment. Google askes the court to adopt its proposals for “robust behavioral remedies and strong enforcement provisions” and reject the government’s requests for divestiture.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-00108-LMB-JFA.

Judge: Brinkema, L.

Attorneys: Aaron Michael Sheanin, U.S. Department of Justice, for the U.S. Craig Crandall Reilly (Law Office of Craig C. Reilly) for Google LLC.

Companies: Google LLC

Cases: TechnologyInternet VirginiaNews