Judge Brinkema rejects DOJ bid to break up Google's ad-tech business
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the Justice Department's bid to force a sale of Google's advertising exchange on 2 September, marking the second time in a year Google's ad-tech business received a reprieve from a Justice Department breakup proposal. She accepted most of the parties' proposed behavioral remedies as modified by the court, while her full opinion with the specific remedies stays under seal for 14 days to let the parties review it.
Economics & Markets··Evening
Brinkema rejects forced sale of Google's ad exchange
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema turned down the Department of Justice's request to force a sale of Google's advertising exchange, accepting behavioral remedies instead in a two-page order issued on 2 September. The Justice Department had argued Google could not be trusted to run the exchange after Brinkema ruled last year that the company had wilfully monopolised the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets and unlawfully tied the two products together.[1], [2]
The ruling is Google's second breakup reprieve in a year
Brinkema's order marked the second time in a year Google's ad-tech business received a reprieve from a Justice Department proposal to dismantle it, and she also rejected the government's argument that Google should be forced to sell parts of the technology underlying a system that generates a significant portion of the company's nearly 400 billion dollars in annual ad sales. Google told the court the exchange handles 55 million requests per second, and Alphabet's market value stood at 4.11 trillion dollars. Google vice president Lee-Anne Mulholland welcomed the ruling, while Tech Oversight Project executive director Sacha Haworth called it the wrong message after courts found an illegal monopoly.[2]
Google says it will appeal the underlying monopoly finding
Google has said it will appeal the underlying liability ruling that found it had wilfully monopolised the two ad-tech markets, though the reasoning behind the new remedies decision has not been made public. The full opinion detailing the specific remedies remains under seal for 14 days while the parties review it and propose any necessary redactions, and the two sides have 30 days from the order to submit a joint proposed final judgement to the court.[1]
