Judge signals skepticism of Google ad tech breakup at closing arguments

Judge Leonie Brinkema expressed considerable hesitation about ordering Google to divest its advertising exchange during closing arguments on November 21, 2025, signaling that behavioral remedies may emerge as the preferred solution to address the company's illegal monopolization of digital advertising markets.

The Eastern District of Virginia federal court hearing marked the conclusion of the remedies phase following Brinkema's April ruling that Google violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. The judge's questions during the November 21 proceedings focused heavily on implementation timelines and practical realities, suggesting she views the case's commercial urgency as paramount.

Time is a critical factor, Brinkema emphasized to Justice Department attorneys. The industry landscape changes rapidly, and predictions about market conditions five years from now remain uncertain, she noted during the hearing, as reported by Courthouse News Service.

The judge raised concerns about Google's near-certain appeal, noting the company faces an "impossible situation" given that publishers and rival advertising technology companies are pursuing damages claims based on her monopoly findings. Divestiture remedies would likely not be enforceable during the appeals process, potentially leaving markets in limbo for years, she observed.

DOJ advocates structural change

Matthew Huppert, leading the Justice Department's closing argument, characterized Google's decade-long conduct as systematically dismantling two advertising technology markets vital to the open internet. He rejected what he called Google's "benevolent dictator" narrative, arguing the company's witnesses—all compensated by Google—testified that only Google can operate advertising tools with proper quality, privacy, and security standards, according to Check My Ads coverage of the proceedings.

The government's proposal centers on forcing Google to sell AdX, its advertising exchange where publishers pay a 20% fee to access demand from advertisers. Reuters reported that Huppert argued nothing short of a forced sale would bring "a brighter, more competitive future for the open web."

The court's remedy needs to completely eradicate Google's illegally acquired monopolies, Huppert told the court, citing Supreme Court precedent requiring "root and branch" elimination of anticompetitive conduct, Reuters reported.

Huppert warned that behavioral remedies would entangle the court in endless litigation over technical details. He provided an example from Google's proposal about latency: if publishers use competing systems, Google promises not to "intentionally" introduce delays that don't exist as technical reality. But if AdX sends bids 400 milliseconds slower, courts would need to determine whether that was intentional or just technical reality—requiring repeated litigation, Check My Ads noted.

Google's rational economic incentives will drive the company to test every boundary and punctuation mark in any behavioral remedy, Huppert argued, according to the coverage. He concluded by invoking the inscription on the Alexandria courthouse entrance about justice delayed being justice denied.

Complexity cannot confer immunity from antitrust enforcement, Huppert warned. If Google succeeds in avoiding structural relief due to technical complexity, it would set a dangerous precedent for big tech companies, Check My Ads reported.

Judge Brinkema interrupted Huppert early in his presentation, asking how quickly remedies could take effect—a question that would dominate much of the day's proceedings, the Monopoly Report newsletter noted.

Google defends integration benefits

Karen Dunn, Google's lead counsel, opened by directly addressing Brinkema's timeline concerns. All of Google's behavioral proposals could be implemented within 12 months, except for programmatic guaranteed and private deals integration with prebid, which would take 18 months, she said off script at the start of her closing, according to the Monopoly Report.

Divestiture makes no sense when both parties substantially agree on behavioral remedies, Dunn argued, characterizing the Justice Department's structural proposal as "lobbing a grenade," Check My Ads reported.

The government's proposals reflect distrust not merely of Google but of the judicial process itself, Dunn suggested, according to Check My Ads. Google's status as a publicly traded company ensures accountability to court orders, making elaborate structural remedies unnecessary, she argued.

Reuters reported that Dunn cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling stating that "lawfully acquired monopoly power is the foundation of the American economy." A forced breakup would be technically difficult and result in a long, painful transition that would harm customers, she argued.

Dunn referenced testimony from Stephanie Layser, whom she called "The Google Slayer," while questioning whether Layser has recent publisher experience, Check My Ads noted. She also referenced complaints from Daily Mail's Matthew Wheatland, using the same terminology that characterized his cross-examination during trial.

The Google attorney closed by questioning whether a messy divestiture was really necessary when both parties agreed on behavioral solutions, according to Check My Ads.

The Monopoly Report observed that Dunn pointed to Google Ads transactions increasingly flowing through YouTube rather than open-web display—what the newsletter characterized as Google's "thinly-veiled threat" that the company might stop bidding on open-web display if forced to divest AdX.

Court questions practical implementation

Judge Brinkema's skepticism centered on commercial reality and the rapidly changing industry landscape. She noted the industry's dynamic nature and the threat of artificial intelligence, questioning whether remedies ordered today would remain relevant years from now, Check My Ads reported.

Google will almost certainly appeal, Brinkema observed, according to Courthouse News Service. Reuters reported that she noted structural remedies would most likely not be easily enforceable during an appeal.

The judge pressed Justice Department attorneys about identifying potential buyers for AdX, Reuters reported. Even if Microsoft expressed interest, it would create similar antitrust problems and require separate regulatory review causing additional delays, she noted. The divestiture proposal remains fairly abstract while a court order must be concrete, Brinkema observed, according to Check My Ads.

The parties have nearly reached agreement on monitoring arrangements, with one remaining dispute about whether the Justice Department or Google submits monitor candidates while the other side selects, Check My Ads reported.

DOJ rebuts Google arguments

Julia Tarver Wood delivered the Justice Department's rebuttal, arguing that behavioral remedies would slowly erode monopoly power without terminating it. Given the time urgency and market uncertainty, the Justice Department pursues structural remedies that truly free markets, she said, according to Check My Ads.

When Brinkema asked why the Justice Department hasn't identified a potential buyer, Wood responded that prematurely identifying buyers before a court order would be inappropriate, Check My Ads reported.

Google witness testimony about divestiture being too complex contradicts the company's own internal documents—a pattern the court observed during the liability phase, Wood emphasized, according to the coverage.

Wood addressed artificial intelligence's impact on publishers. Google claims to steward the open web yet places AI Overviews at the top of search results so users don't need to click through to publisher websites—the AI apocalypse that WikiHow CEO Elizabeth Douglas referenced in her testimony, Wood argued, Check My Ads reported.

This case deserves structural remedies more than almost any other, Wood argued, because Google's monopolies came not from being better but from cheating, according to the coverage.

The proceedings represent a critical inflection point for the open internet and antitrust enforcement against big tech, with the world watching, Wood said. She invoked the courage of industry witnesses who testified against Google despite business risks, urging the court to show similar courage in addressing the underlying disease rather than symptoms, Check My Ads reported.

Google maintains focus on behavioral remedies

Dunn's surrebuttal argued that the Justice Department failed to meet the heavy burden required for divestiture, according to Check My Ads. Courts have never ordered divestiture to remedy tying arrangements, unlawful combinations, complex two-sided technology markets, or situations that remove competitors from competition, she argued.

Google's search advertiser base was partially acquired lawfully, so the Justice Department hasn't sufficiently demonstrated the causal connection necessary to justify divestiture, Dunn contended, the coverage noted.

Returning to trust arguments, Dunn drew parallels to the Microsoft antitrust case. If untrustworthiness alone justified divestiture, Microsoft's structural remedy wouldn't have been reversed on appeal, she suggested, according to Check My Ads.

Industry observers note judge's skepticism

Ari Paparo, founder of Marketecture and author of a book documenting Google's advertising practices, attended the proceedings and immediately assessed Brinkema's position. "Just got out of closing arguments at the Google DOJ AdTech trial. My main takeaway is the judge showed a lot of skepticism about the timing and benefits of an AdX spin out. Enough to sway me it's not going to happen," he posted on X.

In his newsletter analyzing the proceedings, Paparo wrote that he entered the day thinking Judge Brinkema's decision was a coin flip between ordering AdX divestiture or settling for behavioral remedies. After hearing arguments, he now believes Google will avoid a spinout.

The dynamics driving this outcome are clear, Paparo explained. So much money is at stake in civil cases—with treble damages—and those cases base their findings on Brinkema's ruling, meaning Google won't settle no matter how beneficial it might seem. The company will fight to the Supreme Court if necessary, resulting in years where AdX and Google Ad Manager stagnate, he wrote in the newsletter.

The judge recognizes open web advertising's decline and artificial intelligence's threat, making time essential, Paparo noted.

AdExchanger's coverage emphasized Brinkema's concern about commercial reality, specifically how quickly remedies could take effect given advertising technology's pace of innovation and artificial intelligence's potential to reshape internet advertising.

Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, announced on X before the proceedings: "Hey press I know a lot going on. But closing arguments in USvGoogle for breakup of Google's adtech biz are now tmw. This was pushed back a few days for legit personal and Court reasons. Since the Court found massive harms to publishers globally, glad you're showing up."

Technical implementation details debated

The Justice Department argued that Google's timeline descriptions are misleading. The government requested a 15-month closing date for AdX divestiture after the ruling, with structural remedies' competitive benefits appearing on a timeline comparable to Google's 12-15 month behavioral remedies implementation, Check My Ads reported.

The Monopoly Report revealed several noteworthy details from the proceedings. Both sides are well underway picking a monitor who will ensure whatever remedies are ordered get properly administered. This monitor will hire technical advisors to assist with compliance oversight.

Google accepted a six-year monitoring period, the newsletter noted—double the company's original three-year proposal.

Instead of open-sourcing auction logic, Google now proposes creating auditable log outputs similar to stack traces, allowing publishers to validate why ads were served particular ways, according to the Monopoly Report.

The Justice Department showed humor during proceedings, the newsletter observed. To illustrate Google's AI Overviews effect on publishers, they displayed a slide with the search term "how to monopolize a market."

Decision timeline and next steps

Judge Brinkema expects to issue her ruling in January or February, the Monopoly Report predicted. However, she joked at the start that she's not sure this represents the last set of arguments, Check My Ads noted.

The judge concluded by acknowledging excellent advocacy from both sides and expressing appreciation for civility in such high-stakes litigation, according to Check My Ads. She must decide the core issue—structural and behavioral remedies, or behavioral only—then craft the order. Even regarding behavioral remedies, significant differences remain between the proposals.

The publisher case in New York will begin around the same time, the Monopoly Report noted. The Texas case awaits Virginia's ruling before proceeding, with developments expected in spring. The European Union case supposedly isn't waiting for Virginia due to sovereignty, but actually is, suggesting delays until early next year.

Broader context and implications

Check My Ads emphasized the proceedings' enormous stakes. The Justice Department's reminder about trial significance cannot be overstated—weak remedies could embolden big tech and create a crisis of confidence in U.S. antitrust law's ability to protect markets from abuse.

Regardless of outcome, companies will forge ahead with private litigation for harms suffered. Google must reconsider engaging in questionable conduct like rolling out self-serving features or making subtle changes customers neither want nor request, the organization noted.

Check My Ads concluded: "Think of today not as the end, but as a new beginning."

Timeline

• 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 2025: Judge Brinkema rules Google monopolized digital advertising markets
• May 2025: Both parties submit competing remedy proposals
• August 2025: Court documents reveal extensive witness lists and exhibits for remedies trial
• September 2025: Remedies trial presents testimony from industry participants
• October 27, 2025: SDNY grants summary judgment to private plaintiffs using Virginia findings
• November 3, 2025: DOJ and Google file final post-trial briefs and proposed remedies
• November 20, 2025: Jason Kint announces closing arguments scheduled for following day
• November 21, 2025: Closing arguments held in Alexandria, Virginia
• Expected January-February 2026: Judge Brinkema's ruling anticipated

Summary

Who: U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema presided over closing arguments between Department of Justice attorneys led by Matthew Huppert and Julia Tarver Wood and Google's legal team led by Karen Dunn. The case involves state attorneys general alongside federal prosecutors, with implications for publishers, advertisers, and advertising technology companies globally.

What: Closing arguments in the remedies phase of the Justice Department's antitrust case against Google presented fundamentally different visions for addressing the company's illegal monopolization of publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. The DOJ seeks structural remedies including AdX divestiture and open-sourcing of auction logic, while Google proposes behavioral restrictions including real-time bid sharing and removal of discriminatory practices within 12-18 months.

When: The November 21, 2025 closing arguments followed Judge Brinkema's April 2025 liability ruling and a September 2025 remedies trial. Brinkema indicated her decision would arrive in January or February 2026, though she noted additional arguments might occur before final judgment.

Where: The Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria heard arguments, with implications extending globally given Google's advertising technology dominance. Related proceedings are underway in New York, Texas, and the European Union.

Why: The proceedings matter because they will determine whether Google must divest core advertising technology assets or merely modify business practices, setting precedents for technology antitrust enforcement and affecting billions of dollars in publisher revenue, advertiser spending, and advertising technology company competition. Judge Brinkema's skepticism about divestiture timing and enforceability during appeals suggests behavioral remedies may emerge despite Justice Department arguments that only structural changes can restore genuine market competition and prevent re-monopolization.