The latest hearing brought both sides into direct discussion about potential fixes the government believes are necessary to address Google’s role in the ad-tech ecosystem. At the center of the dispute is whether Google’s position in tools that publishers and advertisers rely on gives it an advantage that distorts competition. While earlier testimony focused on market structure and the reach of Google’s products, the current phase shifts toward how any remedy should be shaped if the court determines that changes are needed.
Government attorneys described a set of measures that could include structural adjustments to parts of Google’s advertising business. They argued that the way Google sits between publishers selling ad space and advertisers purchasing it creates circumstances where the company may influence pricing and system behavior. The government also emphasized that programmatic advertising depends on a chain of intermediaries working together and that actions within one part of the chain can affect results across the rest.
Google countered that the proposed remedies would disrupt systems that publishers and advertisers use daily. The company argued that its technologies operate within a competitive environment with other firms providing alternative tools. It also maintained that separating parts of its ad-tech operations could negatively affect efficiency and reliability.
Google’s legal team said that ad marketplaces rely on fast, consistent performance and that breaking them into components might increase costs or slow down transaction processing.
Questions from the court focused on how a remedy might be proportional to any findings of competitive harm. Much of the discussion involved how ad exchanges, demand-side platforms and publisher tools interact. The government described the flow of programmatic auctions and the influence of a single company controlling several links in the process. Meanwhile, Google pressed the point that the digital advertising market continues to evolve, with new competitors shaping how advertisers reach audiences across formats and devices.
Proposed changes included options such as requiring Google to divest parts of its ad-tech stack or modify integrations between tools used by publishers and advertisers. The government’s legal team reflected on past cases in which structural remedies were applied to ensure competitive conditions. They noted that the objective would be to restore neutrality in auction environments where buyers and sellers rely on transparent processes.
Google argued that these approaches would overlook how the company’s investments reduced complexity and contributed to the growth of digital advertising in general. The company emphasized the technical dependencies within the ad-tech system and questioned whether alternative configurations would produce stable outcomes. It described scenarios in which publishers might face fragmented tools, while advertisers could encounter inconsistent performance depending on which platforms they use.
As proceedings continued, both sides outlined contrasting interpretations of market data and the scale of Google’s role in digital ads. Government attorneys referenced instances where publishers may have received fewer bids or where pricing signals became less clear. Google responded that changes in bid patterns occur for many reasons unrelated to platform design and that increased competition across retail media networks and social platforms has already altered how advertisers allocate budgets.
The hearing also addressed whether conduct-based remedies could apply, such as rules requiring more separation in the handling of data or more oversight on auction behavior. The government suggested that structural change may be the only way to guarantee independence between tools that currently operate under the same ownership. Google maintained that conduct remedies, if needed, should be narrow and targeted, arguing that broader measures might create unintended consequences across the industry.
These exchanges illustrated how both sides view the programmatic ecosystem through different lenses. The government framed the debate around competitive fairness and market structure, while Google focused on performance, integration and technical stability. Whatever direction the court takes, the case highlights ongoing scrutiny of how digital advertising platforms operate and what level of intervention is appropriate in markets where technology companies manage essential infrastructure.
