As U.S. courts near a remedy, Europe puts Google’s ad tech concessions under the microscope
By Ronan Shields • January 21, 2026 •
Ivy Liu
The crunch moment in Google’s antitrust battles with the Justice Department over its ad tech stack looms ever closer, with Justice Leonie Brinkema expected to issue her remedies ruling by the close of Q1.
While these deliberations take place in the chambers of a courtroom in the Eastern District of Virginia, developments elsewhere underscore the political undercurrents at play, namely the push to limit Big Tech’s power.
As scrutiny intensifies in the U.S. courts, the European Commission is moving in parallel — probing whether Google’s recent changes to its ad tech stack meaningfully address longstanding competition concerns, or merely repackage its dominance.
Sounding opinions
Consultations with publishers and industry players are already underway and signal that Brussels is far from satisfied, even as Google touts incremental reforms.
The latest developments underscore how Europe’s intervention could shape the next phase of global remedies, with a document reviewed by Digiday indicating the recent changes will not be met with obsequient acceptance by the industry.
In mid-December, the online advertising platform quietly announced several changes to how publishers in Europe can monetize using Google Ad Mnager, with two discernible changes – see below – that many deemed a response to a September rebuke from the European Commission, which fined the company $3.5 billion.
- Unified Pricing Rules (UPR) have been removed. EU publishers can again set different floor prices for AdX vs. rival exchanges, restoring pricing leverage and competition.
- Open Bidding (OB) revenue share cut to zero in the EU. Google has eliminated the 5–10% fee for exchanges bidding into GAM via Open Bidding, removing AdX’s structural price advantage.
According to some, these changes could represent a prelude to how Google will ultimately attempt to head off government attempts to force divestiture across the globe.
The GAM changes were made with little fanfare, until brought to the attention of ad tech executive-turned-influencer Ari Paparo – his career also included a stint at Google’s ad tech arm – who authored a book, entitled “How Google Bought, Built, and Bullied Its Way to Advertising Dominance” last year.
Most tiers of the media industry would welcome government oversight of a dominant entity like Google and its Big Tech peers, with separate sources informing Digiday the EC has been seeking industry feedback from dozens of entities in recent weeks.
Sources, all of whom requested anonymity in exchange for candor, noted that the commission’s inquiries demonstrated a level of technical proficiency that hadn’t previously been on show.
In particular, the subject of Google’s proposed changes to its OB and UPR policies was raised, with sources telling the EC that such behavioral remedies were insufficient to address the issues at hand.
“A lot of it is similar to what they [Google] have proposed in Virginia,” observed one source, who additionally fed back to the EC that more details are necessary.
“It’s helpful to understand their intent on pricing floors, but ultimately, their control over the entire ad stack, and the conflicts of interest in it involve make them not very durable,” added the source who noted their employer (and those of several others) would advocate for a divestiture.
However, while the outreach is welcome, it comes with a note of caution, with one source (who declined to be named, fearing retaliatory action) warning of potential tactical missteps.
One source interpreted the EC’s broad outreach as “very odd,” suggesting it could enable Google to marshal supportive voices (e.g., industry associations and other groups it funds or influences) to shape the narrative or proposed remedies in the region.
In a recent briefing session with journalists, Arete Research’s Richard Kramer and Rocco Strauss noted that Google may not even want to keep GAM, given that its network business is the sole division within the company to have consistently posted declining revenues for several years.
“The biggest thing we’re all waiting for is Judge Brinkema to come down with her ruling,” noted the pair, who went on to detail how most informed opinion suggests she will rule in favor of a behavioral remedy.
After all, Google has already signaled its intention to appeal the court’s decision in the European case, a scenario that would likely take years to resolve, with sources indicating a judge could deem a behavioral remedy more immediately impactful.
Split opinions
However, separate sources (many of whom were former Big Tech executives) noted the difficulty of retroactively applying laws written in eras when the economy operated very differently from the modern landscape.
One former senior Google ad tech executive, who asked not to be named in order to maintain relationships, explained that splitting the DoubleClick For Publishers ad server from the rest of Google would prove much more complicated than many anticipate. It’s also likely that it would yield limited returns in the near-to-mid term, argued several sources consulted by Digiday.
“A lot of publishers seem to have very unrealistic expectations as to what any of these remedies will do for the realities of their business,” noted the executive, in an echo of Google’s official defense argument.
Meanwhile, Tom Jenen, a former Google executive who joined the company after the sale of ad tech company AdMeld, and now serves as CRO for CleverAds, emphasized the importance of regulation to control these large players, as the market cannot do it alone.
“The open internet has evolved many different techniques and technologies to create a new level of parity, through things such as Prebid and OpenAds by The Trade Desk,” he said. “But it doesn’t stop those players who have unique demand and an incredibly strong market power from trying to get around that parity.
