As the second stage of the extensive Google advertising technology trial drew toward its conclusion, Judge Leonie Brinkema remained steadfast in her hope that the two central parties—the U.S. Department of Justice and Google—might ultimately resolve their dispute without requiring her judicial intervention. With a tone that balanced both weariness and pragmatism, she reiterated to the attorneys gathered before her bench, after more than ten intensive days of testimony and cross‑examination, that one of her most cherished expressions in legal proceedings is the simple yet potent phrase, “Let’s settle this case.” Her remark, delivered just prior to adjourning the session, reflected an awareness that even in an arena governed by statutes and precedent, voluntary resolution often produces a more sustainable outcome than a remedy imposed by a court.
Earlier, in a landmark April decision, Judge Brinkema had determined that Google had unlawfully monopolized the crucial market for publisher advertising servers and ad exchanges. She further found that the company had engaged in illegal tying practices—using its dominance in certain technologies to make it extraordinarily difficult for clients and advertisers to migrate to competing services. Yet, paradoxically, while defining and proving illegality constituted a significant judicial achievement, that stage of the process might have been the more straightforward part. The subsequent phase, extending over two further weeks of intricate argumentation, presented a far thornier question: how to mend the competitive landscape that Google’s conduct had constrained for more than a decade.
This remedial challenge has required Brinkema to dissect vast quantities of technical testimony. Expert witnesses offered conflicting narratives about what could feasibly be extricated from Google’s proprietary digital infrastructure without causing new systemic failures. Some described potential separations as both practical and urgently necessary, whereas others contended that the complexity of Google’s intertwined systems made partitioning nearly impossible. Against this backdrop, her suggestion that this particular matter “ought to settle” seems rooted not in indecision, but in a recognition of the enormous practical and technological difficulty inherent in crafting a remedy that simultaneously restores fairness and preserves functionality.
Thus far, there has been no tangible indication that negotiations toward a settlement are advancing. As the closing arguments concluded, the distance between Google and the Justice Department appeared vast. The government advocates pressed for a structural solution—a court‑ordered divestiture of Google’s AdX exchange, coupled with an obligation to make the internal decision‑making logic of its DFP ad server open source. They also proposed keeping the option of forcing a sale of DFP itself, should the first set of remedies fail to revive competition adequately. Google, by contrast, offered a suite of behavioral commitments: restrictions on its future business practices and modified operational standards for its advertising technology, which it claims would resolve the grievances that surfaced during the liability phase.
If no settlement materializes, Judge Brinkema could find herself facing a predicament similar to that of Judge Amit Mehta in the separate but related antitrust case concerning Google’s search monopoly. There, Mehta expressed the need for judicial modesty, ultimately deciding against dismantling Google’s Chrome browser as a corrective measure. Brinkema may, of course, chart a different course, yet her closing comments underscore that whichever path she takes will be emblematic of the broader difficulties facing courts in contemporary high‑technology monopolization suits. Her situation also foreshadows the complexities the government may confront in future proceedings against other corporate giants.
Indeed, the Department of Justice is barreling toward additional trials against industry titans such as Live Nation and Apple, while the Federal Trade Commission prepares to argue its own major antitrust action against Amazon. Earlier this year, the FTC devoted weeks to presenting its monopolization allegations against Meta, and the judgment on liability in that matter remains pending. The outcomes of these cases may collectively redefine the U.S. government’s ability to regulate and restructure dominant technology firms.
The rulings by Judges Mehta and Brinkema declaring Google an unlawful monopolist represent historic milestones—the first successful government‑brought determinations of such a nature in over two decades. They demonstrate that modern courts, though often portrayed as ill‑equipped to parse highly technical evidence, are capable of interpreting complex software ecosystems and data‑driven business models through the lens of antitrust statutes first conceived more than a century ago. Yet while determining that a defendant has violated the law may fall within a judge’s traditional comfort zone, the prospect of re‑engineering an entire market to restore competition poses an altogether different, and arguably more formidable, intellectual task.
Throughout the remedies phase, Brinkema listened as technologists and economists debated the logistical feasibility of dismantling Google’s digital advertising architecture. The two camps diverged dramatically: experts aligned with the government asserted that a structural breakup could be executed without impairing performance or user experience, whereas Google’s specialists insisted that the company’s systems were so deeply integrated that any forced separation would be prohibitively complicated and risk creating an inferior marketplace for all participants. The judge’s role, therefore, extends beyond adjudication to something comparable to technological design—an unusual, delicate frontier for the judiciary.
Should she ultimately decide against dismantling Google’s operations, Brinkema may instead impose behavioral remedies enforced by a carefully selected compliance monitor. Even then, she voiced unease about ensuring the neutrality of such oversight, warning that the success of any final decree could hinge on entrusting it to a monitor wholly free from conflicts of interest. As she aptly concluded, caution in choosing that individual “is part of the key of making whatever the final remedy is work.” Her words, both judicious and pragmatic, encapsulate the weight resting on the modern judiciary as it grapples with reshaping markets whose foundations are written not merely in contracts and statutes, but in algorithms, data, and code.
Sourse: https://www.theverge.com/policy/793455/google-doj-ad-tech-judge-brinkema-break-up
