The Google Antitrust Remedies Are Too Little, Too Late – But Publishers Will Take What They Can Get | AdExchanger

image/svg+xml:

Topics
Latest
Marketers
Agencies
Publishers
Technology
Platforms
Identity
Measurement
Data Privacy
Artificial Intelligence
CTV
Commerce
AdExplainer
Exclusive Report
Daily News Roundup

Opinion
All Columns
Data-Driven Thinking
On TV & Video
The Sell Sider
Content Studio
Comic
Contributor Guidelines

About Us
Advertise
Newsletter
AdExchanger Advisory Board
About Us
Contact Us

Events
Programmatic I/O 2026
CTV World 2027
Top Women in Media & Ad Tech
Webinars
All Events
Network Events

Podcasts
AdExchanger Talks
The Big Story
Inside the Stack

Programmatic I/O

CTV World 2027

Become an AdHero

Subscribe

Sign In

Sign In

Topics
Latest
Marketers
Agencies
Publishers
Technology
Platforms
Identity
Measurement
Data Privacy
Artificial Intelligence
CTV
Commerce
AdExplainer
Exclusive Report
Daily News Roundup

Opinion
All Columns
Data-Driven Thinking
On TV & Video
The Sell Sider
Content Studio
Comic
Contributor Guidelines

Events & Awards
Programmatic I/O 2026
CTV World 2027
Top Women in Media & Ad Tech
Webinars
All Events
Network Events

Podcasts
AdExchanger Talks
The Big Story
Inside the Stack

Subscribe Free
Sign Up

About Us
Advertise
Newsletter
AdExchanger Advisory Board
About Us
Contact Us

CONNECT

Home Publishers The Google Antitrust Remedies Are Too Little, Too Late – But Publishers Will Take What They Can Get

Publishers
The Google Antitrust Remedies Are Too Little, Too Late – But Publishers Will Take What They Can Get By
Anthony Vargas

Monday, September 21st, 2026 – 3:43 pm
SHARE:

The trial that proved Google operates an ad tech monopoly is over. And the court’s behavioral remedies for Google’s monopoly have been unsealed.
If you need a refresher on the final remedies, we’ve got you covered. But here’s a quick-and-dirty recap:

Google’s contracts tying its AdX ad exchange and its DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server into one product under Google Ad Manager (GAM) are no longer enforceable;
Google is not allowed to preference its own ad tech products in ad auctions run on its platform or any other platform;
Google must integrate with third-party ad servers and with Prebid;
Google AdWords advertisers – though not accounts on Google’s DV360 DSP – must bid fairly into other sell-side platforms;
And all of the above provisions apply globally, not just in the US.

So how are publishers reacting to the remedies? Let’s just say they’re trying to accentuate the positive.
“The behavioral remedies will address some of the issues publishers have been impacted by,” Danielle Coffey, President and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, told AdExchanger. “The upside is the timing and ability to get relief immediately.”
District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema could have come down a great deal harder on Google, Coffey noted. “But we’ll take any accountability of Google for decimating publishers, since they have already gone so long unchecked.”
There is also a more jaded, cynical take out there: That the Google antitrust remedies might have been helpful a decade ago, but have little impact in today’s radically different marketplace. Publishers are now contending with AI search obliterating their web traffic, for one thing – and Google is a major stakeholder on the AI search front, too.
And the decision only applies to what the case categorized as “open web display advertising,” which Google argued consists only of open web banner ads, excluding programmatic guaranteed campaigns or anything involving a deal ID. Ten years ago, banner ads represented most of the ocean of programmatic supply. Nowadays there’s CTV and video formats, audio, retail media and curated deals, none of which factor in the remedies at all.
“We’re now talking about agentic buying and selling of advertising and the ways that Google’s basically killing publisher traffic while still continuing to scrape their content without compensation,” said a publisher tech executive who requested anonymity in exchange for candor. “The puck has moved; everything has shifted.”
The long-overdue integration
But, better to have nothing now than worrying and striving for another 10 years of appeals, only to end up with nothing anyway.
With the timeline of any proposed relief for publishers in mind, Coffey cited one silver lining in Judge Leonie Brinkema’s decision: A Google breakup would have meant years of inevitable legal appeals and additional years to manage the divestiture.
Instead of triggering a protracted breakup battle, Judge Brinkema’s behavioral remedies go into effect more or less immediately.
One behavioral remedy that can be implemented post-haste is Google’s long-overdue integration with Prebid, the open-source org that operates the industry’s ad auctions. Prebid President Garett McGrath told AdExchanger earlier this month that it would be a very light lift for Google to integrate with the open-source software.
“Prebid welcomes the court’s focus on interoperability and competition in digital advertising,” McGrath wrote in a statement after the remedies were unsealed. “We look forward to supporting the industry as the court’s remedies are implemented and to continuing our work to promote an open, transparent and competitive digital advertising ecosystem.”
The precise parameters of Google’s integration with Prebid will matter, though.
Will Google decline to include retail media, video or curated deals that it doesn’t consider part of “open web display advertising” in its Prebid integration? Will Google’s exchange disfavor Prebid in other ways, like latency scores? These possibilities were expressed by the DOJ and expert witnesses during the case.
Also, most DSPs have Prebid adapters, which Google’s DV360 does not, noted Scott Cunningham, chair of the Brand Safety Institute’s Publisher Council and head of the Local Media Consortium’s NewsPassID initiative. So, if Google’s supply-side ad tech integrates with Prebid, can advertisers expect a DSP adapter as well?
Unknown.
But one way or another, Google will be compelled to integrate with Prebid. And that was the biggest positive takeaway, according to sources who spoke to AdExchanger for this story.
Today, most major independent ad tech platforms, and even Google’s Big Tech peer Amazon, integrate with Prebid. Meta remains the other notable holdout without any Prebid integration, although Meta doesn’t operate third-party ad tech, as Google and Amazon do.
Now, according to the publisher tech exec who requested anonymity, Google is being dragged kicking and screaming into Prebid’s auctions after Google’s self-preferential ad exchange necessitated Prebid being created in the first place.
The demand-side dilemma
The DOJ’s antitrust suit targeted Google’s publisher ad tech. But how the buy-side ad tech market responds is important as well.
Judge Brinkema’s ruling imposed limitations on Google AdWords (rebranded to Google Ads in 2018), which serves as an advertiser entry point for Google Search, YouTube, Google Play app store ads and Google AdSense’s publisher network.
However, another of Google’s demand-side platforms – its DV360 DSP – was not impacted by the ruling at all.
Still, the AdWords piece is no small potatoes. Much of Google’s dominance of the ad tech market, the court found, came from its ability to channel demand from Google AdWords directly to the DFP ad server, which it acquired in 2007. Publishers have long felt that, in order to access Google’s extensive demand-side relationships, they needed to use the DFP ad server – which was the major anticompetitive concern at the heart of the antitrust trial.
But AdWords is now prohibited from bidding directly into DFP, following Judge Brinkema’s decision. And AdWords is also prohibited from favoring Google’s own ad tech tools.
The AdWords part of the remedies ruling “could open one of the market’s largest pools of buy-side demand to competition on the merits of technology and performance,” wrote Rajeev Goel, CEO of PubMatic, one of Google’s SSP competitors, in a blog post.
But the ruling allows AdWords demand to continue to prioritize AdX if doing so would be in the advertiser’s best interest.
Sell-side consultant Scott Messer flagged the relevant language from Judge Brinkema’s remedies ruling in a recent LinkedIn post: “AdWords would be permitted to prioritize bidding on AdX to achieve ‘advertisers’ objectives, including, for example, on the basis that AdX provides more effective information, access to higher quality impressions, better fraud protection, or better privacy protection than a rival’ ad exchange.”
And, Messer added, “Sure, maybe AdWords will work outside of GAM, but you can bet your digital dollars that it will work much better inside of GAM and AdX.”
The ruling’s language and relativity laxity leaves open the possibility for Google to finds ways to keep the pipeline open between AdWords budgets and GAM ad supply.
“Google’s always been slippery,” the pub tech exec said. So it’s still an overarching question if the company will continue to exploit its market dominance on the technology side – say, by offering ostensibly superior audience data or fraud detection.
The publisher bottom line
The big question: Will this ruling put more money in the pockets of open web publishers?
Probably not.
The point of the antitrust trial wasn’t actually to help publishers make more money, but to promote competition among ad tech platforms, Messer said during a recent appearance on AdExchanger Talks. “I don’t think this moves the needle materially for publishers because the structural elements are still there,” he added.
Cunningham agreed that “some of this creates more competition in ad tech, I suppose.”
But the current dire straits for web publishers isn’t all due to anticompetitive issues with AdX, he added. “I doubt these changes will impact publisher revenue at all, [because] open web itself and display itself is at rock bottom.”
One publisher vet exasperatedly told AdExchanger that the only real win from the case is the sense of satisfaction from Google having been legally ruled a monopolist and from having their suspicions confirmed that Google was screwing over their company.
“We spent a lot of time feeling like Google was effing us,” they said (although we cleaned up their language a bit). “This process showed the emails, the plans, the recordings and basically exposed this company for who they are.”
Whether or not Google is entirely responsible for the open web’s woes, at least now publishers have a good, clean enmity for an out-in-the-open foe, rather than harboring resentments that can’t be expressed.
Google lavishes praise on the open web in its press junkets and public-facing statements while hand-waving the entire category as marginal and beyond fixing in court, said the publisher vet.
“This company creates commercials that make people cry [about] democratized access to information and helping creators,” they said. “But it’s an advertising business. The jig is up.”

Tagged in:

amazon

//
Brand Safety Institute

//
Danielle Coffey

//
display advertising

//
DoubleClick For Publishers

//
featured

//
Garrett McGrath

//
Google Ad Manager

//
Google ad tech antitrust trial

//
Google Ads

//
Google AdWords

//
Google AdX

//
Google DV360

//
Judge Leonie Brinkema

//
Local Media Consortium

//
Meta

//
News Media Alliance

//
open web

//
prebid

//
pubmatic

//
rajeev goel

//
Scott Cunningham

//
scott messer

Next In Publishers

Taboola Eyes The Finance Vertical With An Offer To Acquire Ad Network Dianomi

Related Stories

Google antitrust decision
The Positives And Negatives Of A Potential Google Ad Tech Breakup

OPINION: Data-Driven Thinking
Unpacking Google Breakup Proposals: New Rules, New Risks For Marketers

Platforms
With GAM Going Direct To Buyers, SPO Is The New Normal

Technology
Prebid’s New President Is Its Former Chairman, Garrett McGrath

Must Read

Technology
Can Sell-Side Curation Solve The Cookieless Audience Problem For Advertisers?

Indie agency KWG says sell-side curation can target more high-performing inventory with better match rates and lower data fees than buy-side curation.

ad tech acquisition
Infillion Acquires Foursquare, Adding More Location Data To Its Ever-Growing Ad Tech Stack

Infillion checked in with its latest acquisition on Friday: Foursquare. Apparently, if there’s a strategically interesting or distressed ad tech asset on the market, Infillion will find it.

Platforms
HBO MAX’s Reddit Account Was Compromised And Used For Ad Fraud

A week ago, HBO MAX had its verified Reddit account overrun by a hacker group, which eluded notice for two days while it ran 108 different ad permutations targeting an unknown number of Redditors.

Gaming
Gaming Wants To Prove It’s Just Like Other Media Channels – While Also Owning How It’s Different

Adapting other channels’ strategies might be what gaming platforms need to do to get advertisers comfortable spending more. Leaning into gaming’s differentiators will come later, after bigger budgets arrive.

ad tech acquisition
Taboola Eyes The Finance Vertical With An Offer To Acquire Ad Network Dianomi

Taboola has made an offer to buy Dianomi, a UK-based ad tech company that connects financial advertisers with premium business and finance publishers.

CTV
How The Try Guys Turned Their Love For Liquid I.V. Into A Brand Deal

When a creator already loves the product they’re marketing, it’s easy to work it into their content in ways that feel natural. That’s exactly what the Try Guys did.

Popular

Platforms

Why Wall Street Turned Against The Trade Desk

Platforms

The Court Just Unsealed Judge Brinkema’s Remedies Decision In The Google Ad Tech Antitrust Case. Here’s Your TL;DR

Publishers

Chrome Has A New Way To Measure Ad Overload On The Web

Commerce

Sam’s Club Debuts Ad Targeting Products That Confidently Assert Future Buyers

CTV

Horizon Is Bringing Roku’s TV Data ‘In House.’ Here’s What That Means For Advertisers

Join the AdExchanger Community
Join Now

Your trusted source for in-depth programmatic news, views, education and events.
AdExchanger is where marketers, agencies, publishers and tech companies go for the latest information on the trends that are transforming digital media and marketing, from data, privacy, identity and AI to commerce, CTV, measurement and mobile.

NEXT EVENT
Programmatic I/O New York
September 28-29, 2026Marriott Marquis, New York
Learn More

ABOUT ADEXCHANGER
About Us
Advertise
Contact Us
Events
Subscribe
RSS
Cookie Settings
Privacy & Terms
Accessibility
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging

CONNECT

© 2026 Access Intelligence, LLC - All Rights Reserved

The behavioral remedies issued by the court regarding Google's monopolistic position in the ad tech market have been unsealed, prompting reactions from publishers who are attempting to assess the actual impact of these rulings amidst a rapidly evolving digital landscape. The core remedies prohibit Google from enforcing contracts that tie its AdX ad exchange and DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server into a single product under Google Ad Manager, prohibit Google from favoring its own ad tech products in auctions, mandate integration with third-party ad servers and Prebid, and require AdWords advertisers to bid fairly into other sell-side platforms, with these provisions applying globally.

Danielle Coffey, President and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, suggested that these behavioral remedies address some of the issues publishers have faced, noting that the timing provides immediate relief. However, other perspectives suggest that these remedies may have limited impact given the contemporary market shifts, particularly the rise of artificial intelligence in search that affects web traffic, and the fact that the ruling primarily concerned "open web display advertising," excluding newer formats like CTV, audio, retail media, and curated deals. Publishers contend that the focus of the case did not materially affect their revenue streams, as the structural elements of the market remain largely unchanged.

One of the positive aspects of the decision is the mandated integration of Google’s systems with Prebid, the open-source entity that governs industry ad auctions. This integration is seen as a significant step, avoiding the potential for a protracted breakup and allowing remedies to take effect more swiftly. While Prebid welcomes this focus on interoperability and competition, questions remain regarding the precise parameters of this integration, such as whether non-display formats will be included and how other aspects like latency scores will be handled. Furthermore, the integration raises the question of whether advertisers will receive necessary adapters, as some demand-side platforms already utilize Prebid adapters while Google’s DV360 does not.

Regarding the demand-side market, restrictions were placed on AdWords, which serves as a primary advertising entry point, prohibiting it from bidding directly into the DFP ad server. Nonetheless, Google retains the ability to prioritize AdX if it is deemed in the advertiser's best interest, based on factors such as obtaining better information or fraud protection. This ambiguity leaves open the possibility for Google to maintain the connection between AdWords budgets and GAM supply, raising concerns about continued exploitation of market dominance through superior data or fraud detection.

Ultimately, many publishers feel that the ruling does not directly translate into increased revenue. They argue that the primary goal of the antitrust trial was to foster competition among ad tech platforms, and the current difficulties facing web publishers stem from broader market conditions rather than solely antitrust violations. Despite this skepticism, publishers view the accountability confirmed by the legal process as a victory, providing a clean delineation against a perceived monopolist and alleviating long-standing resentment toward Google regarding the advertising business.