DOJ vs. Google Ad Tech Remedies: Two Plans and What Each Would Change

Where the case stands

In April, a federal court in Virginia ruled that Google illegally monopolized the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising and unlawfully tied the two together. The next question is what Google must do about it. On May 5, the Justice Department and Google each filed proposed remedies with Judge Leonie Brinkema. A remedies trial is scheduled to begin September 22, 2025, according to Digiday's rundown of the filings.

The two proposals are far apart. Understanding both helps publishers plan, whichever direction the court takes.

The Justice Department's plan

The government proposes a phased, largely structural remedy:

1. Interoperability first. Give rival ad servers and exchanges real-time access to AdX bidding, including through Prebid, so AdX demand can compete outside Google's ad server.
2. Open the auction logic. Require Google to open-source the final auction logic in its publisher ad server, so the decision about which bid wins is transparent.
3. Divest. Sell AdX to a court-approved buyer, and if necessary divest the rest of the publisher ad server business as well, under the supervision of a trustee.

The proposal also includes a 10-year ban on Google operating an ad exchange after divestiture. The government's view is that behavioral promises are not enough given the conduct the court found.

Google's plan

Google proposes behavioral changes instead of a sale. In its May 6 blog post, it said it would:

• Make real-time bids from AdX for open-web display ads available to all rival publisher ad servers.
• Deprecate Unified Pricing Rules for open-web display ads, giving publishers the option to set different price floors for different bidders in Google Ad Manager.
• Commit not to use First Look and Last Look for open-web display ads.

Google also proposed operating under independent compliance oversight for a period of years, and argued that the government's additional demands go beyond the court's findings and would harm publishers and advertisers.

What each plan would mean in practice

Floors and pricing

Both plans would likely give publishers more pricing control inside Google Ad Manager. Under Google's proposal, the end of Unified Pricing Rules for open-web display would let publishers set different floors for different buyers again, a capability many lost when those rules arrived in 2019. Publishers should think now about how they would use it: by buyer, by deal type, by format. Differentiated floors can raise revenue, but only with data and testing behind them.

Where AdX demand competes

Both proposals would make AdX bids available outside Google's own ad server. That could let publishers use another ad server or a Prebid-centered setup without giving up access to AdX demand, a combination that has been difficult in practice. How it works technically, including latency, data sharing and fees, will determine whether it is useful or theoretical.

Auction transparency

The Justice Department's open-source auction logic proposal would let publishers and rivals see exactly how the final auction decision is made. That would be a significant change in how much publishers can verify about their own auctions.

A potential ownership change

A divestiture of AdX, and possibly the ad server, would be a multi-year process, with a transition period, new ownership and new commercial terms. Publishers would face integration changes during that period, even if the long-term market were more competitive.

Scenarios worth planning for

Publishers do not need to predict the outcome, but they should have a rough plan for each broad scenario:

• Behavioral remedies only. Google Ad Manager remains your ad server, AdX stays with Google, but pricing rules change and AdX bids become available to other ad servers. The main work is on floors strategy and evaluating whether a different ad server or a Prebid-centered setup now makes sense.
• Interoperability plus transparency. In addition, auction logic becomes open and verifiable. Publishers gain the ability to audit how the winning bid is chosen and should expect more tools built on that transparency.
• Divestiture. AdX, and possibly the ad server, move to new owners over several years. The main work is contract review, integration planning and making sure your header bidding setup can carry more of the load during the transition.

In every scenario, publishers with clean data on their own auctions, including bid landscapes by buyer and by channel, will be able to act fastest.

Questions to ask your partners now

• How would your platform connect to AdX demand if it became available to rival ad servers or wrappers?
• What floors management tools would you offer if per-buyer floors return in Google Ad Manager?
• How would you support publishers through an ownership transition of AdX?

Timing

Nothing changes immediately. Discovery and expert reports run through the summer, the remedies trial starts in September, and a decision follows after that. Google has said it will appeal the liability ruling, which could add further time. Any changes to Google Ad Manager are therefore a 2026 question at the earliest, and potentially later.

What to do now

• Map your Google dependency. Know the share of revenue that comes through AdX, Open Bidding and header bidding, and which operational workflows depend on Google Ad Manager features.
• Prepare a floors plan. If per-buyer floors return, decide in advance how you would test and set them.
• Keep header bidding strong. A current, well-tuned Prebid setup is valuable under either outcome and essential if AdX demand becomes available through it.
• Engage through trade groups. Publisher organizations are likely to submit views on remedies. Publisher input on what is workable carries weight.

The two plans disagree on ownership, but both point toward more open auctions and more pricing control for publishers. Get ready to use them.

An independent, well-maintained auction setup gives you options no matter which remedies the court adopts.