On November 25, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice and Google made closing arguments in a federal antitrust trial over technology used to buy and sell ads on third-party websites. The case was not about Google Search or YouTube advertising. Judge Leonie Brinkema later ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized two parts of the open-web ad-tech system and unlawfully tied two products together, while rejecting the government’s claim about a third market.
What case was ending?
The closing arguments took place in United States and Plaintiff States v. Google LLC, a case filed by the Justice Department and a coalition of states in January 2023. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act involving Google’s digital advertising technology. Judge Brinkema, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, would decide the case without a jury. The Justice Department’s case page identifies the action and its claims.
This was separate from the federal search-monopoly case against Google. The ad-tech trial concerned tools that help place display ads on independent websites, not a ruling on all Google advertising products.
How the ad-tech system works
When an advertiser wants to reach a visitor to a website, several software systems can be involved. In simplified form, the process looks like this:
#1 Best Overall
- Attention-grabbing design meets the latest evolution of the Google Pixel Camera on the new Google Pixel 11 Pro; Gemini Intelligence helps manage details so you can live in the moment[1]; and the phone is available in two sizes
- Unlocked Android phone gives you the flexibility to change carriers and choose your own data plan: Works with Google Fi, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and other major carriers[2]
- Stay informed without looking at your screen: When your phone is face down, Pixel HiLight gently alerts you with subtle glowing lights when your favorite contacts are calling or you’re talking with Gemini; exclusive to Google Pixel 11 Pro phones
- Magic Capture catches the moment as you live it: With just one tap, Pixel 11 Pro captures video and photos, and automatically edits, crops, and unblurs a curated collection, ready to share – and you get the memory of how it felt to be in the moment
- Two new cameras for more brilliant photos: A larger telephoto sensor captures 30% more light for clear, beautiful photos and videos, even in the dark[3]; Pixel’s longest zoom ever helps you capture details from impressive distances[4]
Advertiser → buying tool or network → ad exchange → publisher ad server → website visitor
- Advertiser ad network: Helps advertisers buy display-ad inventory.
- Publisher ad server: Helps a website owner manage available ad space, select an ad, and deliver it on a page.
- Ad exchange: A marketplace or auction system through which advertising inventory is offered to buyers.
These are distinct functions, though products and workflows can connect them. If one company operates tools at several points, it may benefit from integration that makes transactions faster or simpler. It may also face a conflict-of-interest question if it can influence how a publisher’s inventory is offered, how an auction runs, and which intermediary gets access or advantage.
What the DOJ argued
The government described Google as a monopolist in three connected markets: publisher ad servers, ad exchanges, and advertiser-side ad networks for open-web display advertising. Prosecutor Aaron Teitelbaum characterized Google as “once, twice, three times a monopolist.” That was the DOJ’s argument at closing, not a judicial finding at the time. The Associated Press report on the arguments said the DOJ alleged Google controlled about 91% of the publisher ad-server market and cited roughly 87% in an advertiser-side market. Those figures depended on the government’s definitions of the markets; Google disputed those definitions and the resulting shares.
Rank #2
- Google Pixel 10a is a durable, everyday phone with more[1]; snap brilliant photography on a simple, powerful camera, get 30+ hours out of a full charge[2], and do more with helpful AI like Gemini[3]
- Unlocked Android phone gives you the flexibility to change carriers and choose your own data plan; it works with Google Fi, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and other major carriers
- Pixel 10a is sleek and durable, with a super smooth finish, scratch-resistant Corning Gorilla Glass 7i display, and IP68 water and dust protection[4]
- The Actua display with 3,000-nit peak brightness shows up clear as day, even in direct sunlight[5]
- Plan, create, and get more done with help from Gemini, your built-in AI assistant[3]; have it screen spam calls while you focus[6]; chat with Gemini to brainstorm your meal plan[7], or bring your ideas to life with Nano Banana[8]
The DOJ’s theory was that Google used its position across multiple layers to protect its own products and weaken rivals. It pointed to alleged contractual restrictions and product design that could keep publishers and customers within Google’s systems, preferential treatment for Google’s AdX exchange in auctions, and conduct it said manipulated auction outcomes. The government argued that this reduced competition, raised costs for advertisers, and left publishers with less revenue.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →A central part of the case concerned the relationship between Google’s publisher ad server—historically known as DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP—and AdX, its exchange. The DOJ alleged that Google’s ownership and integration of both let it favor AdX and disadvantage competing exchanges. It sought structural relief, potentially including divestiture of parts of the business. At closing arguments, however, liability and any remedy were still for the judge to decide.
What Google argued
Google said the government had drawn the relevant markets too narrowly. In its view, advertisers could use a much broader range of channels, including social media, apps, connected television, retail-media businesses, and other advertising platforms. Google also pointed to competition from companies such as Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft, as well as large publishers and other ad-tech providers. Its market-share claims therefore used a broader denominator than the DOJ’s.
The company characterized its products and their integration as the result of innovation and competition, not exclusionary conduct. It argued that forcing a sale or redesign of interdependent technology could disrupt ad delivery and harm publishers and advertisers. The disagreement about which alternatives belong in the relevant market was consequential: the question was not simply whether Google was large in advertising overall, but whether it had monopoly power in the specific ad-tech markets the government alleged.
What the judge had to decide
Under the Sherman Act, having a large business or even monopoly power is not, by itself, the violation alleged here. The key questions were whether Google possessed monopoly power in properly defined markets and unlawfully acquired or maintained it through exclusionary conduct, and whether it unlawfully tied products together. The court also had to determine what remedy, if any, could address proven violations.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems- Market definition: Which services and alternatives were close enough substitutes to count as part of each market?
- Monopoly power and conduct: Did Google have the ability to control the relevant markets, and did it use unlawful conduct to protect that position?
- Tying: Did Google unlawfully condition the use or effectiveness of one product on another?
- Remedy: If liability was established, what action would restore competition without going beyond the court’s findings?
Vertical integration is not automatically illegal. The legal distinction depends on the conduct and its competitive effects: an integrated product may be efficient, while contractual tying, exclusionary design, or preferential auction treatment may raise antitrust concerns if the required legal elements are proved.
Rank #4
- Google Pixel 10 Pro is the ultimate Pixel experience, featuring advanced AI with Gemini, unbelievable camera quality, impeccable design in two sizes, and the next-gen Google Tensor G5 chip[1]
- Unlocked Android phone gives you the flexibility to change carriers and choose your own data plan[2]; it works - Google Fi, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and other major carriers
- Get a head start on syncing your data before it even arrives: After you purchase your new Pixel, look for an email that explains how to transfer your photos, videos, passwords, and more in just a few quick steps[11]
- Pixel’s pro camera system makes everything look amazing, even in low light; capture more of the scene with advanced Google AI models, and bring out incredible details with 100x Pro Res Zoom, stunning 50 MP images, and super steady videos in 8K[10]
- Pixel 10 Pro is built with durable aluminum and Corning Gorilla Glass Victus 2 for scratch and drop resistance; the 6.3-inch Super Actua display with 3,300-nit peak brightness is easy on the eyes, even in direct sunlight[3,13,18]
What happened after closing arguments
Contemporaneous coverage expected a ruling before the end of 2024, but the decision came later. On April 17, 2025, Judge Brinkema issued a mixed liability ruling. The court found Google liable for unlawfully monopolizing the open-web display publisher ad-server market and the open-web display ad-exchange market, and found unlawful tying of DFP and AdX. It rejected the DOJ’s claim that Google monopolized the open-web display advertiser ad-network market. The court’s memorandum opinion and its PDF copy set out the findings.
That result was significant but not a complete DOJ victory: the government prevailed on two market claims and tying, but not on the advertiser ad-network claim. Nor was it a ruling that Google had to sell all of its advertising business.
Why the remedy is difficult
Liability and remedy are separate stages. In the remedy phase, the dispute has included whether Google should divest AdX, DFP, or both, or whether behavioral and operational restrictions could address the violations. The DOJ’s remedy-related filing is part of that proceeding. The materials identified here do not establish a final remedy order or an appeal disposition as of September 28, 2026, so neither should be treated as settled.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Best Value
- Google Pixel 7 is powered by Google Tensor G2; it’s faster, more efficient, and more secure, with the best photo and video quality yet on Pixel[1].Other camera description:Front,Rear.Bluetooth Version 5.2 with dual antennas for enhanced quality and connection.
- Unlocked Android 5G phone gives you the flexibility to change carriers and choose your own data plan[2]; works with Google Fi, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, and other major carriers
- Pixel’s Adaptive Battery can last over 24 hours; when Extreme Battery Saver is turned on, it can last up to 72 hours[3]
- The 6.3-inch Pixel 7 display is super sharp, with rich, vivid colors; it’s fast and responsive for smoother gaming, scrolling, and moving between apps[4]
- Google Pixel 7 has wide and ultrawide lenses with up to 8x Super Res Zoom[5]; and Cinematic Blur brings more drama to your videos
A structural remedy could separate functions that the court found were used unlawfully together, but splitting products with interconnected data, customers, personnel, and infrastructure would be difficult. Behavioral rules could avoid a forced sale, but would require monitoring how complex auctions and product access operate over time. The consequences may differ among large and small publishers, advertisers, rival exchanges, and consumers; they should not be collapsed into a claim that publishers all favor one remedy.
Why this case matters beyond Google
The dispute reaches the infrastructure behind much of the advertising that helps fund independent websites. The court’s findings and any remedy could affect competition among exchanges, publisher control over inventory, auction design, interoperability, and the economics of online content. The ruling was specific to the markets and conduct litigated; it did not decide every question about Google’s ad business, Search, or YouTube.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
