Google’s Ad Tech Monopoly Ruling: What Happens Next?

Last Thursday’s decision by US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google guilty of monopolizing significant aspects of the digital advertising ecosystem. This ruling hardly comes as a shock to anyone closely following the industry. Still, its implications are profound and potentially transformative.

The court found Google had intentionally established and maintained monopoly power over publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, limiting competition and disadvantaging publishers and advertisers alike.

This ruling sets up what’s likely to become a landmark restructuring of Google’s advertising technology operations. While specifics remain pending, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will soon propose remedies to address these competitive harms, which we believe will result in Google spinning out some of its ad tech businesses.

Our Take: Ad Tech’s Future and the Fate of Chrome Cookies

1. Google is Forced to Divest its Supply-Side Ad Tech Assets

The DOJ’s logical next step is asking the court to mandate Google’s divestiture of its supply-side (Google Ad Manager, including AdX) ad tech platform business. The DOJ’s focus on the supply-side stems from the court’s findings that Google’s dominance in the supply-side of the ad tech market, particularly its control over publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, harmed competition and disadvantaged publishers. This is why the DOJ’s proposed remedies encompass Google’s publisher-facing businesses only. We believe the court will concur.

While an unlikely outcome, our opinion is that simply separating the ad server and exchange won’t be enough. Allowing Google to retain DV360, its demand-side media buying platform, would perpetuate their ability to disproportionately channel ad dollars to their owned-and-operated properties—most notably YouTube. In our view, complete structural separation is essential to genuinely restore competitive balance.

2. Accelerated Cookie Deprecation and a Pivot Toward Privacy

In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in general search and search advertising, violating antitrust laws. This case is currently in the remedies phase with the DOJ having proposed that Google divest its Chrome browser as a remedy for this illegal monopoly. The DOJ argued that Google’s control over Chrome, along with exclusive agreements that make Google the default search engine on various devices and browsers, has reinforced its dominance in search and search advertising. By owning Chrome, Google can set default search settings and collect user data, which competitors cannot match.

Let’s assume, for a minute, that the court permits Google to retain Chrome. Without the ad tech business, we expect to see Chrome cookie deprecation timelines accelerating significantly because they will no longer need to calibrate their privacy moves as to not disturb their lucrative ad tech stack. With a forced divestiture of its supply-side tech businesses—thus removing that constraint—Google would likely pivot quickly to position itself as a consumer privacy advocate—ironically turning regulatory defeat into a branding victory.

The reason this is likely: Google needs to reclaim consumer trust and regulatory goodwill. A renewed emphasis on privacy and universal opt-out mechanisms would distance them from ongoing regulatory scrutiny and reframe their public image from monopolist to consumer protector. Without the ad stack’s competitive conflict, Google has fewer barriers—and clearer incentives—to aggressively advance these privacy measures.

And what happens if the DOJ’s recommendation prevails and Google must separate the browser business? Then the privacy-first outcome is a no-brainer. This is because Chrome’s new owner will need to earn the same consumer goodwill as a matter of establishing itself as a newly-trusted steward of the Chrome browser brand.

In short, Google’s retention of Chrome may be a toss-up, but in our view, Chrome third-party cookies are going to become far less ubiquitous.

If We’re Right: What This Means for Digital Advertising

Should these shifts materialize as we predict—and especially if Google’s demand-side tech is also subject to divestiture—the digital advertising landscape will experience profound change. Here are what we believe will be the real implications:

1. A Better Leveling of the Playing Field: Independent publishers, ad tech startups, and alternative platforms would certainly face fewer structural disadvantages. This isn’t just about fairness—it’s about unlocking innovation. Expect new entrants to gain meaningful traction, leading to fresh approaches and competitive diversity that the market sorely lacks today. I’ll caveat this with our own growing concerns over The Trade Desk’s dominance in what seems to be a replay of Google’s ad tech playbook. Nevertheless, the playing field will be more equitable with the balance created by an independent ad tech entity with the size and market power of the soon-to-be former Google ad tech businesses.
2. Ad Tech’s “Privacy Pivot” Gets Real: Until now, privacy has often been more of a talking point than a genuine competitive advantage. If Google’s cookie deprecation accelerates and consumers opt-out at expected rates, marketers and publishers will need to take open web addressability and measurement alternatives much more seriously. The emphasis will move from compliance for compliance’s sake toward privacy as a foundational competitive strength.
3. A Material Positive Change to Programmatic Complacency: For years, buyers and sellers tolerated complexity and opacity largely because Google’s market dominance provided a de facto industry standard. Even post-divestiture, it’s realistic to assume Google’s ad tech assets—now independent—will remain highly influential, alongside powerhouses like The Trade Desk. But we believe fragmentation will nevertheless force greater discipline and transparency into the ecosystem. We believe publishers will likely demand clearer insights and more equitable terms as they leverage increased competition among platforms. We would expect that advertisers and their agencies will also push for greater accountability, using heightened competitive dynamics to drive better performance and transparency standards from their supply partners. And the elephant in the room is AI, which is already disrupting legacy supply-chain technology vendors. The confluence of these transformative changes will naturally compel all parties to demonstrate real value more clearly and consistently.

A Fascinating Journey

Last week’s ruling isn’t merely a regulatory footnote—it’s a pivotal moment likely to redefine digital advertising. If our predictions hold true, we’re entering an era marked by an entirely new level of competition, meaningful transparency, and authentic privacy innovation. Ad tech, long criticized for opacity and inertia, now faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity to evolve into something fundamentally better—sparked by the dual disruption of Google and AI happening at the same time.

Publishers, advertisers, and consumers alike stand to benefit significantly if the industry can seize this moment to reshape itself around clarity, fairness, and accountability. The next twelve to eighteen months won’t just be fascinating—they’ll be critical to defining digital advertising’s future for years to come.