Judge hears closing arguments on Google ad-tech remedies
After an April ruling that parts of Google's ad-tech business constitute an illegal monopoly, Judge Leonie Brinkema held an 11-day remedies trial this fall and heard closing arguments Friday in Alexandria, Virginia, with a ruling expected early next year. The DOJ urged structural divestitures, calling Google a "recidivist monopolist," while Google called such remedies legally unprecedented and risky for a system that handles roughly 55 million ad requests per second, citing AI-driven market changes as a reason for caution and DOJ witnesses warning about subtle algorithm manipulation; for context, a separate search case saw Judge Amit Mehta reject a proposed Chrome divestiture and order reforms seen as relatively lenient.
📌 Key Facts
- After an April ruling that parts of Google’s ad tech constitute an illegal monopoly, Judge Leonie Brinkema held an 11‑day remedies trial this fall.
- Closing arguments were heard Friday in Alexandria, Virginia; a ruling from Judge Brinkema is expected early next year.
- The DOJ urged structural divestitures, labeling Google a "recidivist monopolist," while Google called the proposal "legally unprecedented" and warned such remedies could jeopardize a system that processes roughly 55 million ad requests per second.
- Google argued that market changes driven by AI counsel caution about drastic remedies; the DOJ emphasized testimony suggesting Google can manipulate ad‑serving algorithms in hard‑to‑detect ways.
- Context: in a related antitrust case over search, Judge Amit Mehta rejected a proposed Chrome divestiture and ordered reforms — an outcome seen as relatively lenient.
📰 Source Timeline (2)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- After an April ruling that parts of Google’s ad tech constitute an illegal monopoly, Judge Leonie Brinkema held an 11‑day remedies trial this fall.
- Closing arguments took place Friday in Alexandria, Virginia; a ruling is expected early next year.
- DOJ is urging structural divestitures, calling Google a "recidivist monopolist"; Google labels the proposal "legally unprecedented" and warns of risks to a system processing ~55 million ad requests per second.
- Google cites market changes from AI as a reason for caution; DOJ emphasizes testimony on Google’s ability to manipulate algorithms in hard‑to‑detect ways.
- Context: In a separate search case, Judge Amit Mehta rejected a proposed Chrome divestiture and ordered reforms, an outcome seen as relatively lenient.