Google is back in court fighting its second potential breakup in Virginia, where Judge Brinkema ruled in April that the search giant illegally maintained monopoly power in online advertising. Now the DOJ wants to force Google to sell its AdX exchange - a remedy the company argues would devastate the open web while creating impossible technical challenges.
The courtroom drama unfolding in Virginia represents Google's most existential threat yet. After Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in April that Google acted illegally to acquire and maintain monopoly power in online advertising, the focus has shifted to what comes next - and whether the ad tech giant can survive intact.
The stakes couldn't be higher. While Google successfully avoided breakup in its search monopoly case, the ad tech trial presents a different battlefield entirely. Here, the DOJ is pushing for structural remedies that would force Google to divest its AdX exchange, potentially unraveling the integrated system that generates billions in revenue.
"The Google ad tech case is the kind that 'ought to settle,'" Judge Brinkema told attorneys this week, revealing her preference for negotiated solutions over court-mandated technical surgery. Her comment signals growing judicial skepticism about the complexity of breaking up modern tech platforms - even when they've been found to operate as illegal monopolies.
Google's defense strategy has centered on technical impossibility arguments that would make even seasoned engineers cringe. Glenn Berntson, Google Ad Manager's engineering director, told the court that divesting AdX would be like "going to the moon," while including proprietary infrastructure would be "going to Mars." The company's witnesses have painted a picture of interconnected systems so complex that separation could destroy functionality entirely.
But the DOJ isn't buying Google's technical sob story. Former News Corp executive Stephanie Layser testified that Google's "anticompetitive behavior was always a moving target," warning that behavioral remedies alone would simply push the company to find new ways to disadvantage competitors. This dynamic explains why the government is seeking a 10-year monitoring period - an acknowledgment that policing Google's conduct requires sustained oversight.
The trial has produced some uncomfortable moments for Google, particularly when rival executives testified about ongoing issues. PubMatic CEO Rajeev Goel described an eight-month delay in fixing a "bug" that prevents Google's advertiser tools from buying inventory through his exchange - coincidentally benefiting Google's own AdX platform. "Assuming that's true," Goel said diplomatically, "Google still stands to make more money if it deprioritizes a fix."
