Google may have been ruled a monopolist twice in one year, but Judge Amit Mehta’s remedies ruling this week has left many critics underwhelmed. However, despite those who would characterize it as “teflon” its antitrust travails are not over yet.  

The company avoided the most severe punishment floated during the trial — a forced divestiture of Chrome or Android — last week, with the court dismissing such measures as overreach. Instead, remedies were confined to narrower behavioral fixes: limits on exclusivity in distribution deals, mandated data and syndication access for rivals and new requirements to disclose material changes in its ad auctions.

Both sides tried to claim victory, with Justice Department lawyers claiming the decision would “pry open the market.” At the same time, Google insisted the decision reflected how a breakup would have gone beyond the case’s scope. 

More fines

Late in the same week, the European Commission fined Google €2.95 billion, or $3.2 billion, for abusing its dominance in online advertising technology. Regulators concluded that Google distorted competition by favoring its own ad exchange, AdX, through its publisher ad server, colloquially known as “DFP,” and ad-buying tools, namely Google Ads and its demand-side platform, DV360 – accusations that echo its remaining antitrust woes in the U.S. 

The Commission found that DFP gave AdX an unfair bidding advantage and that Google Ads largely steered demand toward AdX, foreclosing rival exchanges and reinforcing Google’s central role in the adtech supply chain.

The Commission has now ordered Google to end these self-preferencing practices and to adopt measures addressing conflicts of interest across its ad tech stack, requiring it to present a plan within 60 days. If its proposal falls short, the Commission may impose remedies itself, signaling that divestiture of part of Google’s adtech business may ultimately be required.

Despite this, the wider industry reaction was scathing, with the escalation in tempers reflected in the surging share price of its parent company, Alphabet, after the ruling, fueling perceptions that the penalties lack real bite. Chapell Associates’ Alan Chapell, who also authors The Monopoly Report, argues that it failed to address the underlying monopoly. “It certainly isn’t going to do anything to stop Google from enjoying the fruits of its monopoly as we head into an AI era,” he told Digiday, adding that it will make Google’s lead in the sector almost insurmountable.

However, Professor William Kovacic, a former FTC-staffer and expert in global competition law at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., argued the historical underestimation of conduct remedies and their more profound effects, citing the Microsoft monopolization case in the web browser market a quarter of a decade ago. 

“A number of observers have said the 2002 remedy turned out much better than initially anticipated,” he observed, adding that many believe the 2002 decision led to more market innovation in a sector that would have inevitably been dominated by Microsoft otherwise. 

Critics also described the Technical Committee as toothless, with remedies deemed insufficient to dent Google’s dominance. However, interpretations of its potential impact seemed to be split, with Prohaska Consulting founder Matt Prohaska arguing that the five-person committee could yet prove to curb Google.  

Some have argued the outcome as evidence of Big Tech’s sway over Washington, D.C. – after all, President Donald Trump has characterized European lawmakers’ attempts to curb Big Tech as intentionally anti-American – with many in the media interpreting the latest antitrust decision as an indication of Big Tech’s newfound favor with such political actors. 

Speaking about the context of Justice Mehta’s ruling, Prof. Kovacic highlighted the “antitrust-skeptic” nature of senior echelons of the U.S. judiciary, with the decision likely made with “a clear awareness that their judgment has to survive appeal,” as well as the likelihood of appeal.

He adds, “I think the court’s decision on remedy and liability will withstand review, but Judge Mehta is writing against the backdrop of a relatively conservative jurisprudence.”

However, as the remedies phase of its ad tech antitrust trial nears – it’s due to start September 22 – Google’s defense team is bracing for more.

Numbers to know

• 20%: The estimated reduction in headcount Scope3 implemented late last week.
• 3.6: The number of days it would take for Google to repay the EC fine, in terms of 2024 revenue.

What we’ve covered

The Trade Desk’s redefinition of supply paths ripples across ad tech

The Trade Desk has redrawn the ad tech map — and the ripple effects are already being felt. By reclassifying SSPs as  “resellers,” its AI-driven Kokai platform now penalizes their inventory while steering spend toward its own routes: OpenPath and SP500. To buyers, this promises a cleaner supply and fewer middlemen. To publishers and SSPs, it means shrinking payouts, lost leverage, and growing dependence on The Trade Desk’s infrastructure. Is this a long-overdue fix to ad tech’s murkiness, or the rise of another gatekeeper?

Overheard during the Digiday publisher town hall

Digiday’s Aug. 22 publisher town hall revealed execs juggling stable ad budgets but steep traffic declines, forcing revenue-per-user gains. AI is reshaping workflows and search strategies, though results remain mixed. Publishers favor direct deals over murky open auctions, remain wary of DSP encroachment, and see Amazon’s rise making The Trade Desk more flexible.

What we’ve heard

“I think a lot of these companies may not like discovery very much.” 

– An anonymous (but well-placed) source offers a glib assessment of companies looking to find quarry in Google’s antitrust woes with the U.S. Government, with PubMatic most recently publicizing its lawsuit against Google, joining the likes of OpenX in a trend that Magnite hasn’t ruled out joining in either.

What we’re reading

Perplexity ad chief Taz Patel departs 

Perplexity’s push into advertising has so far brought in modest revenue as the company eyes new growth and faces mounting legal battles, with its head of advertising and shopping, Taz Patel, exiting the company after just nine months, writes Adweek’s Trishla Ostwal.  

Walgreens cuts internal media-buying team amid strategic shift 

The end of the nirvana that was the in-house buying team? Walgreens laid off its media-buying team in July, with the changes coming as Walgreens refocuses on its core retail and pharmacy operations, according to sources familiar with the developments. 

Roqad acquires Zeotap’s third-party data arm to get a leg up On identity in Europe

Roqad’s Identity Solutions will be combined with Zeotap-Data Audiences, for an undisclosed fee, bringing increased scale to two companies that are now jointly pursuing the moniker of “the LiveRamp of Europe,” writes AdExchanger’s Allison Schiff.