By Seb Joseph  •  September 25, 2025  •

Ivy Liu

Not because the remedies on the table are all that different. On the contrary, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly aligned in their view that dismantling Google’s ad tech stack is the only real way to unwind its illegal monopoly over how online advertising is traded. 

What separates the two efforts is timing and tone. 

Europe is moving faster. By early November, Google will have hit the European Union’s 60-day deadline to propose its own remedy. If that doesn’t land, the regulator will impose one. In the U.S., the timeline is longer. This week’s trial sets the stage for a judge to decide whether the Department of Justice’s proposed remedy holds, but a ruling could still be weeks – or months – away. 

On that basis, there’s a real possibility Europe acts first, and defines the baseline for what intervention actually looks like. What that remedy ends up being remains to be seen, but European regulators have made clear that a breakup is very much on the table. Whether it stays on it, though, could depend on how much pressure it faces from Washington, where President Donald Trump has already cast the European regulator’s initial €2.95 billion fine as a direct hit on American business. 

He warned that if the regulator continues the U.S. will be forced to use trade tariffs against the European Union to “nullify the unfair penalties.” The threat came a week after the union agreed to a tendentious truce in the once looming trade war with the U.S. Now, Google’s antitrust saga is tangled up in it. Push ahead, and Europe risks economic retaliation. Pull back, and it undermines its own authority.

It’s a bind, albeit one complicated by President Trump’s track record. The threats are loud but follow-through has been inconsistent. Since returning to office, he’s issued plenty of warnings. Few have stuck. That could change. But so far it hasn’’t.

“I think Europe has the chance to send out a very strong message right now: blackmail is not going to work,” said Alexandra Geese, member of European Parliament for Greens/EFA Group. 

The legal case for a breakup is strong: the European Commission has argued that Google’s control over the buy-side, sell-side and auction layer of digital advertising has created a structurally rigged market – one where the company sets the rules, competes in the game and takes a cut at every stage. In that view, nothing short of separation can restore meaningful competition. 

But the strength of the argument may matter less than its ability to withstand pressure. That’s become the default strategy for dealing with an administration whose provocations often outpace its politics. From tariffs to trade to tech, President Trump has leaned hard without always following through. And those were cases where he didn’t necessarily agree with the underlying cause. 

Here, he does. 

It was under his first term that the DOJ launched its antitrust case against Google’s monopoly over search. And it was his appointee, Gail Slater, now leading the DOJ’s antitrust division – who was back in court this week as the department made its case to dismantle Google’s ad tech business. 

The irony, of course, is that the president may not object to the breakup itself – only to Europe leading the charge. 

“The Trump administration wants Google broken up but there’s a difference between saying it’s got to be broken up and who gets to break them up given it’s a U.S. company,” said Tim Cowen, the Chair of the Antitrust practice Preiskel & Co LLP and co-founder of the lobby group Movement for an Open Web. 

There’s some evidence Europe is mindful of that. While the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union that’s spearheaded this move against Google, hasn’t exactly taken cues from Washington, it has closely tracked the DOJ. In fact, it echoes the very same structural arguments laid out by the DOJ, right down to the framing of how competition is distorted at each layer of the ad stack. 

“What the commission has done is to follow very closely the pleaded position of the Department of Justice,” said Cowen.

Which is why, despite all the political noise, it’s Europe’s decision that may end up shaping what a breakup actually looks like. 

But that answer probably won’t come quickly. The commission is likely to give Google multiple chances to propose its own fix, just as it did before the Microsoft antitrust case was resolved over a decade ago.

It’s no surprise the ad industry’s response to all this is mostly pragmatic. There’s a clear sense that something has to give – that regulatory action is necessary if there’s ever going to be a line drawn around how far platforms can go unchecked. At the same time, there’s a lingering cynicism – even if regulators succeed, will there be much of the market left to benefit from it?

“It does make sense that the next evolution sets a course in favour of the open web: more choice for publishers, more interoperable auctions and real pressure on take‑rates,” said James Taylor, CEO of ad tech company Particular Audience. “Since Google has no incentive to volunteer this, government regulation is needed.”