Google’s advertising technology is once again under scrutiny as the court resumes proceedings to decide how to address the company’s dominance in programmatic advertising. The outcome could shape the future of open web advertising, the backbone of how countless websites generate revenue through display ads. In anticipation, Google has begun suggesting potential reforms – among them, the idea of opening its exchange to Prebid, the industry consortium that provides publishers with an alternative to Google-controlled auctions.
In the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, both parties have presented proposed remedies for the judge’s review. Back in April, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled partly in favor of the DOJ, finding that Google monopolized online display advertising through its control of DoubleClick for Publishers (ad server) and AdX (exchange), which it merged into Google Ad Manager. The central problem was that publishers seeking access to Google’s massive ad demand via AdX were essentially required to use Google Ad Manager.
Last year’s trial gave rival ad tech firms and publishers a chance to testify about Google’s entrenched power – how it designed programmatic auctions, dictated the rules, and ensured preferential treatment for itself. The current remedies phase, which began Monday and is expected to run two weeks, will determine how the balance of power in ad tech might be reset.
According to Ad Age, Google’s most notable proposal is to integrate with Prebid, the open-source consortium designed as an alternative to its own ad auctions. In a recent blog post, the company said it would let publishers place Prebid between its ad exchange (AdX) and ad server, enabling them to receive bids from AdX without being tied to Google’s ad server. Critics argue this step comes too late – Adam Heimlich, CEO of Chalice AI, noted that if Google had embraced such interoperability earlier instead of blocking header bidding, the industry would be in a stronger position today.
A key element of the case was Google’s attempts to suppress header bidding, a technique that allows publishers to attract independent demand for their ad inventory. One example was Google’s unified pricing rules, which stopped publishers from setting separate price floors for Google and competing auctions, limiting their ability to favor alternatives like Prebid. Google now says it will change course, allowing publishers using Google Ad Manager to set different floors for different bidders. Still, uncertainty remains: industry insiders note that much of the ad demand Google controls may not be funneled through Prebid. The court also found Google held a monopoly over the open web display ad market, including banner ads and other website formats, while treating display separately from video, mobile apps, and other ad types, a distinction that could further complicate the issue.
A key sticking point is the future of Google Ad Manager. The DOJ is pushing for a divestiture, while Google insists it should remain whole, arguing that Google Ad Manager covers more than display ads, extending into areas like connected TV and mobile apps that weren’t part of the case. Another complication is the rise of AI: Google is already weaving AI into products like Chrome, which could reshape digital advertising and alter the open web in unpredictable ways. This raises concerns that any remedies imposed now may quickly become obsolete. As one ad tech expert noted, if the underlying technology evolves within a year, the solutions could lose their effectiveness because they would be tied to a landscape that no longer exists.
