{"id":15786,"date":"2025-09-27T14:25:05","date_gmt":"2025-09-27T14:25:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/demo4.dedicatedhost247.com\/newstime\/can-google-be-trusted-without-a-break-up\/"},"modified":"2025-09-27T14:25:05","modified_gmt":"2025-09-27T14:25:05","slug":"can-google-be-trusted-without-a-break-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/demo4.dedicatedhost247.com\/newstime\/can-google-be-trusted-without-a-break-up\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Google be trusted without a break up?"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

On day three of the two-week remedies trial in the Justice Department\u2019s ad tech case against Google, Judge Leonie Brinkema boiled down the argument to one key issue: trust. Brinkema interrupted testimony from a DOJ expert with a hypothetical: should she issue a strict order modifying Google\u2019s behavior, could it resolve the issues at hand if \u201cyou had confidence that Google would actually act in complete good faith?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The question felt particularly pointed, given how the Google trial Brinkema presided over last year unfolded. Over three weeks, the DOJ repeatedly presented examples of Google employees allegedly using chat messages<\/a> to avoid leaving a paper trail for discovery. Brinkema later said the practice represented \u201csystemic disregard of the evidentiary rules.\u201d While she opted not to sanction Google for its lax approach to preserving evidence, she warned not to take its decision as condoning the behavior.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Soon, Brinkema will decide how hard to crack down on the monopoly that she ruled Google holds in ad tech. That decision may hinge on whether she thinks it will follow the rules this time.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Google\u2019s remedies proposal involves a court order banning specific business practices and requiring it to engage in the ad auction process in ways similar to its rivals. But the DOJ says that leaves it easily capable of monopolizing the market again. The government wants to take power out of Google\u2019s hands altogether by making it spin off ad exchange AdX and open source part of (and possibly even sell) its DFP tool for web publishers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

It\u2019s the second time in just a few months that a judge has faced the question of breaking up Google. In a separate case over Google\u2019s search monopoly, Judge Amit Mehta declined to do so<\/a>, opting for lower-lift remedies like banning anticompetitive practices and sharing data. The facts that led Mehta to decide against a break up have no bearing on this case, the government argued in its opening statement<\/a>. Still, Brinkema\u2019s ruling could be an indicator of how widely judges share Mehta\u2019s caution, as more cases against Big Tech companies roll toward a trial.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThe devil is in the details\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The DOJ was still in the midst of its case-in-chief on Friday, but Google\u2019s attorneys were already driving at their core argument: that the government is underselling how difficult and risky its asks are. Google advertising executive Tim Craycroft testified that the DOJ\u2019s proposals were \u201cnaive\u201d and \u201cincoherent.\u201d This line of thinking seemed to land with the judge by mid-week. \u201cThe devil is in the details,\u201d she said during the testimony of Jonathan Weissman, the DOJ\u2019s expert witness on the technical feasibility of a break up. After he compared changing Google\u2019s ad tech tools to changing tires on a car, Brinkema noted that a change to snow tires could result in a \u201cbumpier\u201d ride for the user.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But during Craycroft\u2019s testimony, Brinkema appeared to entertain an even more extreme option the government hadn\u2019t asked for: shutting down AdX altogether. This was apparently something Google itself considered within the past few years in an analysis it called \u201cProject Monday,\u201d Craycroft said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cWhy is that not a very simple and elegant solution?\u201d Brinkema asked, after Craycroft noted that another Big Tech company could buy AdX and create its own monopoly. Though several ad exchanges exist today, the court found they\u2019ve been denied a level playing field because of tactics like reserving full real-time bidding access to Google\u2019s huge advertiser base through its own tools. Publishers testified in the liability trial that made it nearly impossible to leave, even though AdX was charging a supracompetitive take rate of 20 percent on transactions. Craycroft told the judge that deprecating AdX could<\/em> be an elegant solution, but that would also get rid of other helpful features in the product.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Brinkema made clear she wants to learn what\u2019s actually possible, as she considers options for leveling the playing field without harming publishers and advertisers who rely on Google products.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Google found a so-called business divestiture of AdX would be feasible within two years, Craycroft said, including offloading IP, moving customer contracts, and providing reference code to guide the buyer through duplicating product functions in its own systems. But he stressed Google couldn\u2019t realistically provide source code guaranteed to work in an unknown buyer\u2019s tech stack, as the DOJ requests. Former Facebook capacity engineer Goranka Bjedov, who helped migrate Instagram and WhatsApp during their acquisitions, testified that the reference source code would be sufficient for a full migration. If Brinkema finds a divestiture is possible, she\u2019ll have to decide if she trusts Google enough not to force one.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Even after helping Google\u2019s attorneys craft their remedies proposals, Craycroft told DOJ attorney Matthew Huppert that he could not commit to lowering AdX\u2019s 20 percent take rate, which the judge had ruled to be above a competitive level, and said a tie between DFP and access to AdX real-time bidding, a sticking point for publishers, was \u201cjust how the product was built.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The answer to Brinkema\u2019s question about trust wasn\u2019t necessarily reassuring for Google. Robin Lee, the Harvard economist she asked, said the problem was how many different ways Google could get around the intentions behind a court order. Lee said there\u2019s an almost unpredictably exhaustive list of methods for tilting the scales in Google\u2019s favor, and it\u2019s got every incentive to take them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Longtime Google critics were disappointed after Mehta\u2019s ruling didn\u2019t include a breakup. If Brinkema reaches a similar conclusion, The Trade Desk Chief Revenue Officer Jed Dederick testified, \u201cI think there will be a sense that they got away with it.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n