The U.S. Department of Justice is pursuing a potential breakup of Google’s advertising technology business, alleging it holds an unlawful monopoly over the digital advertising supply chain, with the remedies phase of its ad tech trial due to start in September. 

Of course, this follows Justice Brinckema’s ruling in favor of the DOJ, and although Google has signalled its intention to appeal the decision, a process that would prolong the case by a matter of years, in anticipation of or response to such a remedy, Google is likely to offer several olive branches. 

Sources indicate that this could take the form of several strategic measures aimed at appeasing regulators and mitigating the severity of any enforced structural changes.

First, Google is likely to enhance interoperability with third-party ad tech vendors, including offering broader API access, loosening restrictions on data sharing and improving transparency in auction dynamics, particularly within Google Ads, DV360 and Ad Manager. Likely measures to address this concern include ensuring that Google does not prioritize its own platforms in the ad-buying and selling process.

Additionally, Google will most likely explore unbundling certain components of its ad stack voluntarily or propose behavioral remedies to pre-empt a forced divestiture. This could involve operational separations (e.g., between demand-side and supply-side businesses) or firewalls to limit preferential data flows.

Meanwhile, Google is also likely to promote initiatives like Privacy Sandbox and Topics API as evidence of its commitment to a more competitive and privacy-conscious ecosystem. However, critics argue these tools still concentrate power within Chrome and Google’s broader infrastructure.

Additionally, Google may step up outreach to advertisers, publishers and third-party ad tech partners to reinforce its willingness to collaborate — highlighting moves such as partnering with third-party measurement vendors or supporting Prebid integrations. — Ronan Shields

Netflix will add FAST channels to court creators and counter YouTube

Netflix executives like to say the streamer’s biggest rival is sleep. But really it’s YouTube. The Google-owned video platform overtook Netflix to become the most-watched streaming service on TV screens two years ago and hasn’t looked back. Which is why Netflix needs to figure out a way to keep pace and fast – or, should I say, FAST.

Why would it make more sense for Netflix to add free, ad-supported streaming TV channels to its service instead of opening up to YouTube creators? 

Well, for starters, opening up to YouTube creators would expose Netflix to all kinds of potential issues. Ad-pocalypse redux, for one. But also, if Netflix were to have the monetization model for those creators being a revenue-sharing program a la YouTube, then all those film-and-TV producers eyeing rev-share opportunities when Netflix added ads would definitely be angling for those ad dollars now.

By contrast, if Netflix were to add FAST channels, it could cherry-pick particular YouTube creators to license videos from, such as Michelle Khare who already has a back catalog with her YouTube show “Challenge Accepted” and recently signed a syndication deal for Samsung’s FAST platform. Plus, adding FAST channels could accelerate Netflix’s ad inventory growth while also providing the streamer a means to engender even more appointment-viewing habits if it were to, say, premiere the final “Stranger Things” season premiere at 8 p.m. ET on a Sunday night on the “Stranger Things” FAST channel.

Does this lead to Netflix becoming too much like traditional TV? Maybe. But what’s the alternative? All of TV becoming YouTube? — Tim Peterson

Traffic drops are coming – fast and hard

If current trends hold, publishers still heavily reliant on search and social could see 30–50% declines in referral traffic by the end of 2025.

That may sound alarmist, but the signs are already here: Google’s AI Overviews are rolling out widely and replacing the need to click through on many queries; Facebook referral traffic has all but vanished for most publishers; and early 2024 data from Chartbeat and Similarweb shows search traffic declining 20 – 40% in some cases. Meanwhile, the rise of answer engines like ChatGPT and Perplexity — which satisfy user queries without sending them anywhere — signals where things are heading: a zero-click future.

And zero-click future isn’t the stuff of nightmares purely for audience strategists, but for commercial execs under pressure to meet quarterly targets. The topic of eroding referral traffic — and the resulting hit to ad revenue — is now a daily conversation inside publishing editorial and commercial teams, with some already eyeing H2 with growing concern as early signs of impact begin to surface.

Some publishers are still shrugging this off, pointing to low AI engine use and steady search traffic as signs that there’s no real threat yet. Others have said, they can’t see exactly how much of a threat exisits because Google won’t share its AI Overviews data. But that’s wishful thinking – plan for the worst. Because the shift is already happening — and by the time the traffic really tanks, it might be too late to course-correct. — Jess Davies

Amazon’s DSP isn’t the threat everyone wants it to be

The hype cycle around Amazon’s DSP is starting to wobble. For all the noise about it gunning for The Trade Desk and Google, the actual threat feels more theoretical than real. Sure, Amazon’s offering juicy carrots — zero platform fees, generous discounts and rebates — to lure spending. But buyers say those ad dollars aren’t coming from Google or The Trade Desk. They’re mostly additive, not a redistribution of power. 

And the pitch still isn’t landing cleanly. The tech is clunky, bulk uploads are a mess and the DSP doesn’t sync seamlessly with Fire TV, which was supposed to be the whole point. Plus, the commercial terms aren’t competitive enough to shift entrenched behavior. Behind the scenes, agency execs talk about a confusing org chart and conflicting messages. Some even describe Amazon’s posture in negotiations as arrogant — an odd stance for a company that’s chasing share. 

In short, this is less a market shake-up from the Amazon DSP than a moment of reckoning. The hype is still loud. The traction? Not so much. — Seb Joseph 

Publicis is playing to win, but may be setting itself up to burn out

Coca-Cola. Mars. Paramount. Publicis isn’t just winning pitches, its dominating them. The holdco has positioned itself as the default choice for global brands looking for integrated solutions at scale. But that kind of momentum comes with its own risks. The more it wins, the harder it becomes to deliver on those promises without stretching teams, systems and trust to the breaking point. 

Yes, Publicis has built a formidable stack — Epsilon, Lotame, Sapient, Influential and Captiv8 to name a few. But stitching those assets together, across geographies and functions, for multiple Fortune 500 clients simultaneous can quickly descend into operational whiplash. The “Power of One” starts to look more like the burden of many. 

Senior marketers are already starting to take notice.

 “I don’t know if all the CMOs who have decided to work with Publicis are going to be happy with that decision come next year,” said one of them, who exchange anonymity for candor on the topic. “There’s a chance that good execs are going to leave their accounts to jump onto the next one the group tries to win.” — Seb Joseph