Pressure to force a break-up of Google’s ad technology business is facing uncertainty, with new signals that the structural remedy sought by the Department of Justice (DoJ) may not be adopted in its landmark monopoly case.

The dispute centres on Google’s dominance across key layers of the digital advertising stack – conduct that was ruled illegal in April – as both sides delivered final arguments last week on what penalties should be imposed.

The DoJ wants Alphabet to divest at least its AdX exchange and potentially its publisher ad server to restore competition.

But a US Federal Court judge questioned whether a forced sale would be “easily enforceable,” especially as Google is expected to lodge an immediate appeal.

The judge warned that “time is of the essence”, noting that a lengthy appeals process could stall any divestiture for years.

The comments suggest the judge may lean toward adopting Google’s proposed behavioural remedies, which include sharing bid-level data with rivals, interoperability commitments and the appointment of a monitoring trustee.

Google’s counsel argued that a divestiture would be disruptive for publishers and advertisers, likening the DoJ’s proposal to throwing a “grenade” into the market.

The company also noted that no buyer had been identified for its ad exchange – a detail the judge highlighted in questioning whether the government’s proposal was still too abstract.

The stakes are significant. Google’s search and ads division generates more than US$50 billion each quarter, roughly half of Alphabet’s total revenue and the financial engine behind initiatives from Waymo to DeepMind.

Google (Image: Sourced from Unsplash)

The judge’s upcoming decision follows a series of recent antitrust outcomes in the US that have largely favoured major tech platforms.

Meta recently prevailed in a Federal Trade Commission case seeking to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, while Google avoided a breakup in a separate DoJ challenge to its search business earlier this year.

The DoJ maintains that only a structural remedy will prevent Google from re-establishing dominance.

Government lawyers argued that behavioural obligations would simply “freeze the status quo”, warning the court that Google has ample ability to test the limits of softer rules.

A final ruling is expected next year, though the timeline and any eventual enforcement may hinge on Google’s appeal strategy.