Earlier this month, I reported that Google will not have to sell its advertising technology business after US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the Department of Justice’s attempt to force a sale. The decision stems from a 2023 lawsuit by the DOJ and a coalition of states, which argued that Google used its grip on the ad market to squeeze out competitors by operating the software publishers use to sell ad space on their sites, the tools advertisers use to buy that space, and the exchange where the two meet.
In April 2025, Judge Brinkema found the company had illegally monopolized two of those markets and unlawfully tied its ad server to AdX, the exchange where publishers pay Google a 20% cut to sell ads in auctions that run the instant a page loads. The DOJ wanted Google to sell off AdX, but Google argued it should just have to change how it behaves instead. Ultimately Brinkema sided with Google, questioning who would actually buy AdX, whether small publishers would lose the free ad server they rely on, and how many years of appeals a forced sale would drag through before anything changed.
Last we heard, Judge Brinkema said Google did not have to sell its ad exchange, but the rest of the order was sealed, until now. Here’s what was revealed in the 106-page remedy opinion:
- No more tying DoubleClick for Publishers to Ad Exchange. Google can’t enforce any policy or contract term that ties its ad server to its marketplace where the ad space gets auctioned, meaning publishers can now use a rival ad server like Kevel or Equativ and still receive AdX bids.
- First Look, Last Look, and Unified Pricing Rules are prohibited for all indirect transactions, and publishers can again set different price floors on different exchanges. The plaintiffs’ own expert testified that eliminating Unified Pricing Rules alone would cut AdX’s 20% take rate to roughly 16.6%, in line with rivals.
- Prebid integration is mandatory. Google must let Prebid solicit real-time AdX bids for all indirect open-web display inventory, DFP publishers must be able to route both indirect and programmatic direct demand through Prebid, and rival ad servers must receive AdX bids on the same terms DFP does. Before, AdX would only bid inside DFP’s auction, so publishers had to run Google’s ad server to get that demand.
- Publishers can export their DFP data to competing ad servers and obtain AdX bid data, including losing bids, none of which Google made available before.
- Google must document how DFP picks ads, plus provide a data file for every ad served showing candidate prices, any adjustments applied, and why the winning ad was chosen, but it does not have to publish source code.
- A Monitor oversees compliance for six years, with access to Google’s documents, employees, and source code, backed by a Technical Committee and an Internal Compliance Officer. The judgment applies worldwide and takes effect 60 days after entry.
- Google keeps AdX, DFP’s auction logic, and DV360, which drew no remedies. The court also rejected an escrow fund taking half of AdX and DFP net revenue, struck the anti-circumvention and anti-retaliation provisions as too vague, and cut the proposed 15-year term to six.
Are the remedies fair? That’s for you to decide. Either way, the parties have 30 days to submit a joint proposed final judgment, with the remedies kicking in 60 days after that’s entered. Google is expected to appeal.
