Tea in the courtroom: the gossipier side of the remedies trial over Google’s ad tech monopoly
By Seb Joseph • October 10, 2025 •
Ivy Liu
A courthouse in Virginia was meant to be the stage for a long-awaited antitrust reckoning. Instead, by most accounts, it occasionally played out like Succession: ad tech edition. Digiday wasn’t in the room but those who were described the remedies phase part legal showdown, part industry confessional. Hat tip to The Monopoly Report and the Check My Ads teams for their close coverage.
Here’s a rundown of the gossipy sub plots and quiet power plays that emerged from the courtroom.
The spaghetti defense: Google’s security vp Heather Adkins described its systems as a “bowl of spaghetti,” bringing up quantum encryption and undersea cables to argue that breaking things up would be too hard.
The breakup that wasn’t supposed to be possible: Publicly, Google has argued that breaking up its ad tech stack would be all but impossible. Privately, it’s been mapping out how to do exactly that. Internal documents during the trial revealed that for years, Google has been pressure-testing how a separation might work. “Project Sunday”, launched in 2020 and revisited in 2021, explored how to split key components of its ad tech stack within its own infrastructure. Then came “Project Monday” in 2023 — a more radical scenario that explored a scenario of discontinuing parts of the ad business. The takeaway: splitting off AdX and forcing a fairer, more transparent marketplace isn’t just possible — it’s something Google has mapped out in detail.
And it wasn’t just an internal thought experiment: Google commissioned investment banking firm Lazard to look into selling AdX back in 2020.
Still, none of that soul-searching translated into generosity: Pour one out for the publishers still hoping for a better deal from ad tech under Google’s ownership. Its vp and gm Tim Craycroft made it clear during testimony: Google has no plans to lower Adx’s 20% take rate. That cut, long a point of contention among publishers, isn’t up for negotiation — at least under Google’s ownership.
The potential bidders are already circling: Not one, but two ad bosses admitted they’d be interested in picking up pieces of Google’s ad tech stack if it were split up. Index Exchange CEO Andrew Casale said he’d recently discussed acquiring the ad exchange with the DOJ. James Avery, CEO of retail media player Kevel, went further, testifying that he’d consider buying both the exchange and the ad server if they were on the market — or either on its own.
Retail players aren’t sitting idle: Speaking of Kevel, Avery said his business is building its own exchange. Retail media FTW.
The contrarian view: Maybe the industry doesn’t need AdX at all. That was the take from Jay Friedman, former CEO of Goodway Group and now a strategic advisor, who testified that divesting the exchange misses the point Outside of Google, it’s just another ad exchange in a market already oversaturated with them. Worse, depending on who buys it, it could introduce more headaches than it solves.
Ad tech Stockholm syndrome: Google’s witness WikiHow CEO Elizabeth Douglas basically said she trusts Google more than other SSPs and doesn’t dwell on its rev share.
Advertisers want Google broken up: For all the silence from advertisers around the trial, the frustration is there. Luke Lambert, head of reputation and insights at Omnicom Confluence testified that advertisers have been pressing for answers about what really happens inside programmatic auctions. The problem: he can’t tell them. The auction is a black box, and the system is too complex to trace every potential tweak that may work in Google’s favor. That’s why, Lambert argued, behavioral remedies fall short. As long as Google controls the pipes, it controls the margins. Divestiture, he said, is the only option that changes that.
….on the topic of transparency: Turns out that AdX take rates are longer outlined in the Omnicom contract. A decade ago, they were — now, not only are they missing, they’re not even negotiable. That puts Google’s exchange effectively out of scope when it comes to the holdco’s SPO efforts to consolidate ad dollars into the most efficient programmatic marketplaces.
The receipts are in: The Trade Desk’s chief revenue officer Jed Dederick named names on disclosed markups from supply-side platforms. PubMatic, Magnite and Index Exchange were all named in his deposition, which was read back to him during the trial.
*emoji thinking face*: Several Google witnesses say throughout the trial that the company doesn’’t use its first-party data to target ads on open web display inventory.
Even the open-source remedy sparked drama: Google wanted IAB Tech Lab to host the code that encompasses how its ad server manages what ads and where it does, while a witness from Prebid.org insisted it was the only one with the chops.
The mystery bug: PubMatic told the court that for eight months, a technical issue has prevented DV360 buyers from reaching its Open Bidding inventory, while those same dollars kept flowing into AdX. Google called it an unfortunate glitch and explained it had been resolved.
