Google and DOJ File Proposed Final Judgments in Ad Tech Case

At 10:15 p.m. on Friday, Google and the Department of Justice filed a 41-page document that will shape the tech giant's punishment in the ad tech antitrust case — and the two sides still cannot agree on who picks the compliance monitor, how fast reforms must ship, or what counts as malfeasance.

The filing, the latest step in a legal battle running since January 2023, lays out each side's proposed final remedies side by side in brackets. It follows Judge Leonie Brinkema's proposed remedies, unsealed on September 16. Ideally, the parties would have negotiated a clean document for the judge to sign. They did not. Brinkema must now referee the disputes before she can issue enforceable remedies.

Once she does — with no set timeline — a 60-day clock starts before anything takes effect. Google will almost certainly appeal. Some disputes look procedural, but the details determine whether the remedies carry any force.

What do the sides agree on?

The core remedies face no major disagreement:

• Google must connect AdX (its ad exchange) to Prebid, an open-source header bidding wrapper (a tool publishers use to solicit competing bids), so publishers can request AdX bids through Prebid.
• AdX must accept bid requests from non-Google publisher ad servers and respond on the same terms it gives DFP, Google's publisher ad server.
• Google is barred from reimplementing first look and last look (auction advantages once granted to its own bids) in DFP or AdX for programmatic open web display auctions — largely symbolic, since Google no longer uses either.
• Unified pricing rules, which prevented publishers from setting different price floors for different buyers, join the banned auction manipulation tactics.
• Google Ads can no longer bid directly into DFP; it must go through AdX or Prebid like every other buyer.
• DFP and AdX must be sold as separate contracts — no more tying.
• Publishers gain data rights: Google must let them export DFP configuration data and historical bid data within three months of the order taking effect, valuable ammunition for any publisher weighing a rival ad server.

The agreed core is settled; the fight now is over timing, data and enforcement.

Where do Google and the DOJ still clash?

Timing is the first battleground. The DOJ wants AdX connected to Prebid within six months of the order taking effect; Google wants twelve. The same gap applies to integrations between AdX and rival ad servers. Google also seeks up to 24 additional months to implement remedies internationally, while the DOJ demands global application from day one.

Data access splits them too. The DOJ wants publishers to request their DFP data when "considering or evaluating" a non-Google ad server. Google's language would release the data only after a publisher has already decided to switch — a distinction that blunts the data's usefulness as a comparison tool.

The monitor (an independent overseer of compliance) is the sharpest sticking point. Both sides accept a six-year monitoring period with access to Google's systems and source code. But the DOJ wants the government to nominate a list of candidates for Google to choose from; Google wants the reverse. The DOJ demands Google "cooperate fully" and provide "full and complete access" to all documents, code and personnel — current and former — within 14 days. Google's draft swaps "cooperate fully" for "no action to interfere" and "full and complete access" for "reasonable assistance." Very different vibes.

On dispute timelines, the DOJ gives Google 15 days to raise disagreements with the monitor; Google wants 30.

What happens if Google violates the order?

The sharpest omission concerns malfeasance — behavior crossing from technical dispute into punishable contempt. The DOJ wants a clear standard for what triggers contempt proceedings, one of the few tools available to force compliance with a court order. Google's version of the section reads, verbatim, "[Google omits this subsection]."

That pattern — softening, sharpening or deleting language to fit each agenda — runs through the entire filing. The ball is now back in Judge Brinkema's court, and the remedies' bite depends on which brackets she strikes.

By Amara Osei