Google is fighting tooth and nail to avoid a second potential breakup, this time over its ad tech empire. In a Virginia courtroom this week, the tech giant deployed a parade of witnesses comparing the Justice Department's proposed remedies to "going to Mars" and "replacing Michael Jordan" - essentially impossible and disruptive. Judge Leonie Brinkema, who already ruled Google illegally monopolized publisher ad tools, now holds the company's ad tech future in her hands.
Google just wrapped what could be its most consequential week in court since the search monopoly ruling. Unlike that earlier victory, this time the company's already been found guilty - District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in August that Google illegally monopolized two markets for publisher ad tools and tied them together anticompetitively.
Now comes the harder question: what to do about it. The Justice Department spent last week arguing for a surgical strike - force Google to sell its AdX exchange and open-source parts of its DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server. It's the only way to prevent Google from finding new paths to dominance, DOJ attorneys argued.
Google's response? Bring in the analogies. "Going to the moon is simpler than going to Mars," testified Glenn Berntson, Google's Ad Manager Engineering Director, describing even a limited AdX divestiture. Technical expert Jason Nieh went further: "We're trying to replace the Michael Jordan of databases. There's only one Michael Jordan, and he's irreplaceable."
The courtroom theater masks a deeper tension. Google's economic expert Andres Lerner argued the company shouldn't even have to give up its monopoly power - just stop using it unfairly. That drew a sharp response from Brinkema: "Which is inconsistent with the concept that some monopoly power can continue. I see a tension there."
The stakes couldn't be higher for the digital advertising ecosystem. Google's ad tech stack processes hundreds of billions in annual ad spending, with the company taking cuts at multiple levels. Publishers have long complained about Google's 20% take rate on AdX, which Brinkema ruled was inflated due to lack of competition.
Google ad tech executive Tim Craycroft offered some concessions during testimony, saying the company would be "very open to making a formal commitment" not to integrate its buying tools directly with DFP. But he wouldn't commit to lowering that controversial 20% fee - even though the court found it artificially high.
The company's resistance extended to practices it claims not to use. Google says it doesn't leverage data from YouTube or Search to power its ad tech business, but wants to keep that option open "should it become an important way to compete."
