Google antitrust remedies trial witness lists reveal complex technical evidence

Federal court documents filed on August 15, 2025, reveal extensive witness lists and hundreds of confidential exhibits prepared for Google's antitrust remedies trial scheduled to begin September 22. The Eastern District of Virginia court materials show both the Department of Justice and Google have assembled substantial technical evidence for the proceedings that will determine how to address the company's illegal monopolization of digital advertising markets.

Judge Leonie Brinkema will oversee the remedies phase following her April 17, 2025 ruling that Google violated federal antitrust laws by monopolizing publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. According to documents released by the court on August 15, both parties expect to present testimony from approximately 15 witnesses each, with exhibit lists totaling over 870 documents spanning from 2008 to 2025.

Comprehensive Analysis of Witness Lists and Strategic Testimony Plans

The Department of Justice's witness list reveals a strategic approach to presenting evidence about competitive harm and remedy implementation. Tim Craycroft from News Corp, who will testify live, previously provided crucial testimony about how Google's tying arrangements prevented publishers from effectively diversifying their advertising technology providers. His continued involvement signals the government's intent to demonstrate ongoing competitive harm that requires structural remedies.

Andrew Casale, CEO of Index Exchange, represents one of Google's primary competitors in the ad exchange market and will testify live for the plaintiffs. During the liability phase, Casale detailed how Google's integrated advertising technology stack created unfair competitive advantages. His testimony in the remedies phase will likely focus on how proposed structural changes could restore competitive dynamics and enable independent ad exchanges to compete more effectively.

Goranka Bjedov from Magnite, another key competitor, will provide live testimony for the Department of Justice. Magnite operates one of the largest independent supply-side platforms, giving Bjedov firsthand experience with the challenges of competing against Google's integrated advertising technology ecosystem. Her insights will be crucial for evaluating the practical impact of various remedy proposals on existing market participants.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Milgrom's inclusion on both witness lists highlights the complex economic arguments both sides plan to present. Milgrom previously testified about auction theory and how Google's control over multiple components of the advertising technology stack enabled the company to manipulate auction outcomes. In the remedies phase, his expertise will likely focus on the economic efficiency implications of various structural and behavioral remedy options.

Google's witness strategy reveals a preference for deposition testimony over live witnesses, suggesting the company may be taking a more defensive approach. Heather Adkins, Google's Director of Information Security and Privacy, is among the few Google employees expected to testify live. Her background suggests Google plans to argue that proposed remedies could compromise user privacy and data security, a common defense strategy in technology antitrust cases.

The inclusion of industry executives on both witness lists demonstrates how the remedies phase will examine practical implementation challenges. Per Bjorke and other technology leaders will likely testify about the technical feasibility of various remedy proposals, including the complexity of separating integrated advertising technology systems.

Deep Dive into Google's Code-Named Project Documentation

The exhibit lists reveal an unprecedented look into Google's internal project management and strategic planning processes. The systematic use of code names for advertising technology initiatives suggests deliberate compartmentalization of potentially sensitive business strategies. Project documentation spanning from 2008 through 2025 provides a comprehensive timeline of Google's advertising technology evolution and integration efforts.

Project Ragnarok, referenced in a June 22, 2023 document, represents one of the more recent internal initiatives. The Norse mythology reference suggests a major transformation or "end of the world" scenario for existing systems, potentially indicating Google's planning for significant architectural changes. The timing coincides with increased regulatory scrutiny and may represent internal preparations for various enforcement scenarios.

Skyray Migration documents appear multiple times across different years, indicating a long-term infrastructure project. Materials from 2014 and 2017 suggest this project involved migrating advertising technology systems, possibly consolidating separate platforms into Google's unified advertising technology stack. The multi-year timeline indicates the complexity and scope of Google's system integration efforts.

Project Single Click, documented in June 2020, likely relates to user experience optimization across Google's advertising platforms. The timing suggests this project may have been designed to increase the efficiency of Google's advertising technology integration, potentially at the expense of competitor platforms that required additional steps or interfaces.

Project Sundial appears in multiple documents from 2021-2022, including specific focus on "sell-side options" and "sell-side focus." This terminology suggests Google was actively planning how to maintain its publisher-facing advertising technology advantages. The timing coincides with increased antitrust scrutiny and may represent strategic planning for competitive responses.

Project AURAS (Unified Reservation/Auction Stack) documentation from 2019 reveals Google's systematic approach to integrating its advertising technology components. The name suggests this project aimed to create a single, unified system for both guaranteed and auction-based advertising inventory. Communications from September 2020 show continued development and implementation of AURAS features, indicating this was a multi-year strategic initiative.

Technical Infrastructure and Engineering Documentation Analysis

The exhibit lists include extensive technical documentation that reveals the engineering complexity underlying Google's advertising technology monopolization. Documents spanning cloud infrastructure, database systems, and distributed computing architecture demonstrate how Google leveraged its broader technological capabilities to maintain advertising market dominance.

Borg-related documentation appears multiple times, referencing Google's internal cluster management system. These materials likely demonstrate how Google's advanced infrastructure capabilities provided competitive advantages that smaller advertising technology companies could not replicate. The inclusion of such technical materials suggests both sides will present detailed arguments about the feasibility and costs of remedy implementation.

Spanner database documentation indicates Google's use of globally distributed database technology for advertising systems. This technical capability enabled Google to provide consistent, low-latency advertising services across global markets, creating barriers for competitors with less sophisticated infrastructure. The documentation may support arguments about whether forcing divestiture would impair these technical capabilities.

Kubernetes and containerization documentation from various years shows Google's evolution toward cloud-native advertising technology architectures. These materials could be relevant to arguments about whether separated advertising technology components could maintain equivalent performance and reliability. The technical complexity documented in these materials may support Google's arguments that structural remedies would be difficult to implement effectively.

Fluentd logging infrastructure documentation appears in recent exhibits, indicating Google's sophisticated data collection and processing capabilities within its advertising technology stack. This technical documentation could be relevant to remedy discussions about data sharing requirements and the technical feasibility of maintaining separate advertising technology systems.

Financial Evidence and Market Impact Documentation

Financial documents included in the exhibit lists provide crucial evidence about the economic impact of Google's advertising technology monopolization. Google's 2024 and 2025 profit and loss statements for its display advertising business appear as highly confidential exhibits, suggesting these materials contain sensitive financial data about the profitability of Google's advertising technology operations.

The inclusion of multi-year financial data enables both sides to present detailed economic analyses of various remedy proposals. These materials likely show the revenue impact of Google's advertising technology integration and could support arguments about the financial feasibility of structural separation.

Spreadsheet exhibits from various competitors, including Criteo, The Trade Desk, and PubMatic, provide comparative financial data that demonstrates the economic impact of competing against Google's integrated advertising technology platform. These materials may show how Google's monopolization affected competitor revenues and market shares.

Adobe revenue data and other advertiser spending information included in the exhibits enables analysis of the broader economic impact of Google's advertising technology practices. This data could support calculations of consumer harm and the potential benefits of increased competition following remedy implementation.

Regulatory and International Context Evidence

The exhibit lists include materials from international regulators and academic sources that provide context for the U.S. remedies proceedings. Federal Trade Commission documents and UK Competition and Markets Authority materials demonstrate global regulatory interest in Google's advertising technology practices.

European Union Digital Markets Act documentation included in the exhibits suggests both sides will reference international enforcement trends and comparative regulatory approaches. This international context may influence remedy design and implementation timelines.

Academic studies and industry reports from various research organizations provide economic and technical analysis of digital advertising markets. These materials enable both sides to present expert analysis about market dynamics and the potential impact of various remedy options.

Industry Competitor Documentation and Alternative Scenarios

Extensive documentation from Google's competitors provides insight into alternative competitive scenarios and the potential impact of various remedy proposals. Materials from Index Exchange, PubMatic, Criteo, The Trade Desk, and other advertising technology companies demonstrate the current competitive landscape and how structural changes might affect market dynamics.

OpenX documentation included in the exhibits represents a significant competitor that has struggled to compete against Google's integrated advertising technology platform. Materials from OpenX likely provide evidence about the competitive challenges faced by independent advertising technology companies and how remedies might restore competitive opportunities.

Magnite and other supply-side platform documentation demonstrates the publisher perspective on Google's advertising technology practices. These materials likely show how Google's integration affected publisher revenues and choices in advertising technology providers.

The Trade Desk materials provide the demand-side perspective, showing how Google's practices affected advertisers and advertising agencies. This comprehensive view of competitive harm supports the Department of Justice's arguments for structural remedies.

Technical Remedies and Implementation Complexity

The extensive technical documentation included in the exhibit lists suggests both sides will present detailed arguments about remedy implementation complexity. Google's internal infrastructure documentation may support arguments that structural separation would be technically challenging and could impair system performance.

Cloud infrastructure materials from Google Cloud Platform demonstrate how Google's advertising technology leverages broader technical capabilities. These materials could be relevant to arguments about whether separated advertising technology components could maintain equivalent technical capabilities.

API documentation and system integration materials show the complexity of Google's advertising technology interfaces. These technical specifications could be relevant to remedy discussions about data sharing requirements and technical standards for separated systems.

Database and storage system documentation reveals the data architecture underlying Google's advertising technology integration. This technical evidence could be crucial for evaluating the feasibility of data separation requirements and ongoing data sharing obligations.

Recent Communications and Ongoing Competitive Impact

The exhibit lists include recent internal communications from 2025 that demonstrate ongoing competitive impact and Google's current strategic thinking. Emails from May 2025 between Google employees show continued coordination across advertising technology products, potentially demonstrating that Google's monopolistic practices continue despite the liability ruling.

Recent communications may also reveal Google's internal planning for various remedy scenarios. These materials could provide insight into Google's preferred remedy approaches and internal assessments of different structural and behavioral options.

Contemporary market data through 2025 enables both sides to present current evidence about competitive conditions and the ongoing need for remedial action. This recent evidence may be particularly important for demonstrating that competitive harm continues and requires prompt remedial intervention.

Expert Economic Analysis and Market Modeling

The exhibit lists include extensive expert analysis from economists retained by both sides. Robin Lee's expert materials for the plaintiffs likely include detailed economic modeling of various remedy scenarios and their potential impact on competition and consumer welfare.

Andres Lerner's materials for Google likely present alternative economic analysis questioning the effectiveness of proposed remedies and arguing for less intrusive behavioral measures. The competing economic analyses will provide the court with detailed technical arguments about remedy design and implementation.

Jason Nieh's technical expert materials likely address the engineering and infrastructure implications of various remedy proposals. This technical analysis will be crucial for evaluating the feasibility and costs of structural separation requirements.

The comprehensive expert analysis included in the exhibit lists demonstrates the sophisticated economic and technical arguments both sides plan to present in the remedies phase.

Broader Industry Impact and Stakeholder Perspectives

Documentation from publishers, advertisers, and other industry stakeholders provides comprehensive evidence about the broader impact of Google's advertising technology monopolization. News Corp materials likely demonstrate the publisher perspective on how Google's practices affected revenue and competitive choices.

Verizon and other large advertiser materials show the demand-side impact of Google's advertising technology integration. These materials may demonstrate how Google's monopolization affected advertising pricing and innovation in digital marketing.

Industry association materials and trade publication coverage provide additional context about market perceptions and competitive dynamics. These materials help establish the broader industry understanding of Google's market power and the potential benefits of increased competition.

The comprehensive stakeholder perspective provided by these materials enables the court to understand the full scope of competitive harm and the potential benefits of effective remedial action.

Implementation Timeline and Transition Planning

The extensive documentation suggests both sides will present detailed arguments about remedy implementation timelines and transition planning. Google's internal project documentation demonstrates the company's capability for complex system migrations and infrastructure changes, potentially supporting faster implementation timelines.

Technical documentation about cloud infrastructure and distributed systems provides evidence about the engineering resources and timeframes required for structural separation. This evidence will be crucial for establishing realistic implementation schedules and interim measures.

Financial materials enable analysis of the economic impact of various implementation approaches and transition costs. This economic evidence will help inform decisions about remedy scope and implementation support requirements.

The comprehensive evidence base provided by these materials enables informed decision-making about remedy design, implementation timelines, and ongoing compliance monitoring requirements.

Significance for Digital Advertising Markets

The remedies trial represents a watershed moment for digital advertising regulation and market structure. The comprehensive evidence compiled in these exhibit lists provides the foundation for potentially transformative changes to how digital advertising markets operate.

Previous coverage on PPC Land has detailed the competing remedy proposals and their potential impact on the advertising technology ecosystem. The extensive documentation revealed in these court filings demonstrates the depth of analysis both sides will present to support their respective positions.

The case's outcome will likely influence regulatory approaches to technology platform monopolization globally. International regulators are closely watching the U.S. proceedings and may adopt similar enforcement strategies based on the remedies ultimately implemented.

For marketing professionals and industry stakeholders, the remedies trial will determine the future competitive structure of digital advertising markets. The extensive evidence compiled in these proceedings provides unprecedented insight into how Google's advertising technology integration affected market competition and innovation.

The technical complexity revealed in these court filings demonstrates the sophisticated arguments both sides will present about remedy feasibility and market impact. The September 22 trial date provides a firm timeline for resolution of these complex competitive and technical issues.

The comprehensive nature of the evidence compiled for this remedies phase reflects the significance of the case for digital advertising markets and broader technology regulation. The court's ultimate remedy decision will establish important precedents for addressing technology platform monopolization in rapidly evolving digital markets.

PPC Land explains

Advertising Technology (Ad Tech)

Advertising technology encompasses the complex ecosystem of software platforms, data systems, and algorithmic tools that enable the automated buying and selling of digital advertising inventory. This technology stack includes demand-side platforms for advertisers, supply-side platforms for publishers, ad exchanges for auction facilitation, and data management platforms for audience targeting. The sophistication of modern ad tech systems allows for real-time bidding on individual ad impressions, with transactions completed in milliseconds as web pages load.

Publisher Ad Server

A publisher ad server is the foundational technology platform that publishers use to manage, deliver, and track their digital advertising inventory. Google's DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), now called Google Ad Manager, dominates this market segment. These systems control which advertisements appear on publisher websites, manage pricing and inventory allocation, and provide reporting on advertising performance. The court found that Google's tying of its ad server to its ad exchange created illegal monopolization.

Ad Exchange

An ad exchange functions as a digital marketplace where advertising inventory is bought and sold through automated auctions. Google's AdX represents one of the largest ad exchanges globally, connecting advertisers seeking to purchase ad space with publishers offering inventory. The real-time bidding process occurs within these exchanges, with multiple advertisers competing for individual ad impressions based on targeting criteria and bid prices.

Digital Advertising Markets

Digital advertising markets encompass the broader ecosystem where online advertising inventory is traded between buyers and sellers. These markets have evolved from simple banner advertising to sophisticated programmatic trading involving multiple intermediaries, data providers, and technology platforms. The Department of Justice's case specifically focused on "open-web display advertising" markets, distinguishing them from social media, search, and mobile app advertising.

Monopolization

Monopolization refers to the illegal acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through anticompetitive conduct, as prohibited under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court found that Google monopolized publisher ad server and ad exchange markets by using exclusionary practices, including tying arrangements that forced publishers to use Google's ad server to access unique advertising demand. This conduct violated antitrust laws by harming competition rather than reflecting superior products or business efficiency.

Exhibit Lists

Exhibit lists represent the comprehensive inventories of documents and evidence that parties plan to present during trial proceedings. In this case, the exhibit lists filed on August 15, 2025, contain over 870 numbered items spanning 17 years of Google's advertising technology development. These materials include internal communications, technical specifications, financial data, and strategic planning documents, many marked with confidentiality designations reflecting their sensitive commercial nature.

Witness Testimony

Witness testimony forms the core of trial proceedings, with parties presenting live witnesses and deposition testimony to support their legal arguments. The remedies phase witness lists reveal strategic choices by both sides, with the Department of Justice focusing on industry executives who can testify about competitive harm, while Google emphasizes technical experts who can address remedy implementation challenges. The combination of fact witnesses and expert witnesses enables comprehensive examination of complex technical and economic issues.

Technical Infrastructure

Technical infrastructure refers to the underlying computing systems, databases, and network architecture that support Google's advertising technology operations. The exhibit lists reveal extensive documentation of Google's use of advanced technologies including Borg cluster management, Spanner distributed databases, and cloud computing platforms. This sophisticated infrastructure provides competitive advantages that smaller advertising technology companies struggle to replicate, creating barriers to effective competition.

Code-Named Projects

Code-named projects represent Google's systematic approach to developing and implementing strategic initiatives within its advertising technology business. Projects like Ragnarok, Skyray Migration, Project AURAS, and Project Sundial demonstrate Google's long-term planning and coordination across multiple advertising technology components. The use of code names suggests deliberate compartmentalization of potentially sensitive business strategies, with some projects spanning multiple years of development and implementation.

Remedies Phase

The remedies phase represents the final stage of antitrust litigation, where courts determine appropriate measures to address proven antitrust violations. Following Judge Brinkema's liability ruling, this phase will evaluate competing proposals for structural remedies (such as requiring Google to divest advertising technology assets) versus behavioral remedies (such as modifying business practices while preserving integrated operations). The remedies determination will establish the framework for restoring competition in digital advertising markets and preventing future anticompetitive conduct.

Timeline

• 2008: Google acquires DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, establishing foundation for advertising technology integration
• 2011-2015: Google implements multiple code-named projects including Skyray Migration and Project Green
• 2017-2019: Advanced integration projects including Project AURAS and DRX unification initiatives
• 2020-2022: Continued system integration with Project Sundial, Project Single Click, and sell-side separation planning
• January 24, 2023: DOJ files antitrust lawsuit against Google targeting advertising technology practices
• September 2024: Three-week liability trial concludes with extensive technical testimony
• April 17, 2025: Judge Brinkema rules Google monopolized digital advertising markets
• May 5, 2025: Both parties submit competing remedy proposals
• August 5, 2025: Court issues pre-trial scheduling order requiring witness and exhibit disclosures
• August 15, 2025: Parties file comprehensive witness lists and exhibit inventories totaling over 870 documents
• September 22, 2025: Remedies trial scheduled to begin with extensive technical and economic testimony

Summary

Who: The Eastern District of Virginia federal court, Department of Justice, 17 state attorneys general, and Google LLC are the primary parties. Key witnesses include industry executives Tim Craycroft (News Corp), Andrew Casale (Index Exchange), Goranka Bjedov (Magnite), Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Milgrom, and Google's Heather Adkins. Technical experts include Robin Lee for the plaintiffs and Jason Nieh for Google.

What: Court filings on August 15, 2025 disclosed comprehensive witness lists and exhibit inventories for the antitrust remedies trial. The documents reveal extensive technical evidence spanning Google's advertising technology development from 2008-2025, including hundreds of internal project documents with code names like Project Ragnarok, Skyray Migration, Project AURAS, and Project Sundial. Financial evidence includes Google's 2024-2025 profit and loss statements and competitor revenue data. The exhibits total over 870 documents, many marked "Highly Confidential," covering engineering specifications, strategic planning materials, and international regulatory contexts.

When: The witness and exhibit lists were filed August 15, 2025, following the court's August 5 scheduling order, ahead of the September 22, 2025 remedies trial start date. The case follows Judge Leonie Brinkema's April 17, 2025 liability ruling against Google. The extensive evidence spans 17 years of Google's advertising technology development and market integration efforts.

Where: The Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria will hear the remedies phase, the same venue where Judge Brinkema conducted the liability trial and issued the monopolization ruling. The evidence encompasses Google's global advertising technology operations and competitive impacts across international markets.

Why: The remedies trial will determine how to address Google's illegal monopolization of publisher ad server and ad exchange markets through violations of Sherman Act Sections 1 and 2. The extensive evidence preparation reflects the complex technical nature of digital advertising markets, the significant potential impact of various remedy proposals on the global advertising ecosystem, and the precedent-setting importance of the case for technology platform regulation. The comprehensive documentation enables detailed analysis of structural versus behavioral remedy options and their implementation feasibility.