Google Faces Court Showdown Over Ad Monopoly

Justice Department seeks breakup of digital advertising empire

Google is preparing to face the U.S. Department of Justice in federal court as closing arguments begin in Alexandria, Virginia. The case centers on whether Google’s digital advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema previously ruled that parts of Google’s ad network had been manipulated to stifle competition. Her upcoming decision, expected early next year, will determine how to remedy these practices.

Government Push for Breakup

Federal prosecutors argue that Google should be forced to sell portions of its ad technology, assembled over nearly two decades. They contend that only a breakup can rein in what they describe as a “recidivist monopolist.” The Justice Department has compared Google’s advertising dominance to its search engine monopoly, which was also challenged in court. In that case, Judge Amit Mehta rejected a proposal to force Google to sell its Chrome browser, a ruling widely seen as lenient.

Alphabet’s market value surged by about $950 billion following Mehta’s decision, reflecting investor confidence that Google escaped serious penalties. The Justice Department, however, remains determined to pursue structural remedies in the advertising case. Prosecutors emphasize that Google’s ad system processes 55 million requests per second, underscoring its scale. They argue that dismantling parts of the system is necessary to restore competition.

Google’s Defense

Google’s lawyers insist that breaking up its ad technology would be too risky given the complexity and scale of the system. They argue that the technology must continue to function reliably for consumers and advertisers. The company has proposed reforms aimed at increasing price transparency and fostering competition. In filings, Google criticized the Justice Department’s plan as “legally unprecedented and unsupported divestitures.”

Executives also point to artificial intelligence as a factor reshaping the advertising market. They claim AI-driven competition is already challenging Google’s dominance. This argument echoes Judge Mehta’s reasoning in the search monopoly case, where AI was cited as a source of new market pressure. Google maintains that reforms, rather than divestitures, are the safer path forward.

Witness Testimony and Next Steps

The Justice Department has urged Judge Brinkema to focus on witness testimony presented during the trial. Experts described how Google could manipulate algorithms in ways that are difficult to detect. Prosecutors argue that such practices demonstrate why Google cannot be trusted to regulate itself. Closing arguments will give both sides a final opportunity to influence the judge’s decision.

A ruling is not expected until early next year. The outcome could reshape the digital advertising industry and set precedents for future antitrust enforcement. Google continues to resist reforms while defending its integrated system as essential for consumers. The Justice Department remains firm in its push for structural change.