US Asks Court to Split Google’s Ad Tech, Cites Broken Promises

The US government asked a federal judge on Friday to order the breakup of Google’s digital advertising arm, saying it does not trust Google’s promises to ce how it works.

Lawyers for the government made their case at the end of a trial over Google’s ad tech “stack,” the tools that help publishers sell ads and advertisers buy them.

This fight is the second big antitrust case against Google this year. In September, a judge rejected the Justice Department’s request to split Google’s search business. These cases are part of a wider effort by US regulators to curb the power of large tech firms such as Apple, Amazon and Meta, with mixed results so far.

In a brief filed before the closing statements, the DOJ and several states accused Google of winning control in two linked ad tech markets through a “decade-long campaign of ever-mutating unlawful conduct.” The government says Google now runs many parts of the online ad market at once: the tools publishers use, the exce where ads are sold, and a huge pool of advertiser demand. At one point Google compared this setup to Goldman Sachs owning the New York Stock Exce.

Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater posted on X: “We are here to fix the problem. We will argue that the best solution is to break up Google’s monopoly, which will create a new competitor,”

Google pushed back, calling the remes extreme and saying a split would hurt publishers, advertisers and users. The company argues its integrated ad tools bring efficiency and new ideas, and that breaking them up would be hard to do.

Earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled that Google had willfully monopolized both the publisher ad server and ad exce markets. Prosecutors now seek sweeping fixes, including forcing the sale of Google’s AdX ad exce and requiring Google to open-source key auction technology.

The remes hearing ran for 11 days and included testimony from 19 witnesses and seven experts. Some observers warn the judge’s final orders could be appealed, which would delay any ce for years.

A contrast with the search case: the judge there cited new developments like AI as a reason to be cautious. In the ad tech case, the DOJ argued that AI could instead make Google’s lead harder to beat.

A final ruling in this ad tech case is expected in the coming months.