Why DOJ Should & Will Prevail in the Google Ad Tech Remedies Trial

1. Google rigged the digital ad market. For over a decade, Google has dominated both sides of the $600B+ online ad ecosystem—controlling 80-90% of publisher ad servers and exchanges through exclusionary tactics like tying its DoubleClick tools to AdX auctions, as Judge Brinkema ruled “willful” and illegal in April 2025. The April 2025 liability ruling means the trial isn’t about proving misconduct—that’s settled—it’s about ensuring remedies tough enough to unwind Google’s cartel. This isn’t fair competition; it’s a digital cartel manipulating prices and crushing rivals, harming publishers and advertisers alike.

2. Ordinary Americans pay the price. Google’s monopoly skims 35% fees on every ad transaction, inflating costs that small businesses pass on to families through higher prices for goods and services—potentially billions in overcharges annually. Breaking it up with divestitures would slash these “taxes” by 15-20%, boosting innovation and putting money back in Americans’ pockets, just as consumers deserve in a free market. That means higher grocery bills, pricier online purchases, and fewer options for families—every American is paying a hidden tax to Google.

3. It’s about free speech as much as free markets. Google’s ad dominance lets it economically censor by demonetizing conservative voices and independent outlets it dislikes, starving them of revenue under vague “policy violations” that smack of viewpoint bias. This deplatforming threatens the First Amendment and the marketplace of ideas—remedies like spinning off ad tools would restore fair revenue flows, ensuring all Americans can speak freely without Big Tech gatekeepers.

4. Breakup is the only real fix. Fines alone fail, as Europe’s $10B+ penalties since 2017 (including a fresh €2.95B hit on September 4, 2025) haven’t curbed Google’s abuses. Structural remedies—divesting AdX and open-sourcing auctions—mirror the 1984 AT&T breakup that sparked telecom booms and price drops; anything less lets Google rebuild its empire, especially in AI.

5. National security is at stake. One company’s grip on ad tech data flows creates vulnerabilities, exposing sensitive user info (like targeting national security personnel) to foreign threats from China or Russia via real-time bidding leaks. Concentrated control over digital infrastructure endangers U.S. sovereignty—Trump’s remedies would fragment this power, protecting American interests at home and abroad.

6. The Trump DOJ showed real leadership. While Obama and Biden dithered, Trump’s first-term filing exposed Google’s rot, and his second-term team is delivering tough enforcement with the remedies trial kicking off September 22, 2025. This isn’t overregulation; it’s antitrust law in action, fresh off the September 2 search remedies win, to dismantle Silicon Valley bullies and revive true competition. Trump’s DOJ isn’t just punishing past misconduct—it’s writing the playbook for how America will confront monopolies in AI, e-commerce, and beyond.

7. This case is a template for Big Tech accountability. A DOJ victory here—forcing Google to compete fairly—sends shockwaves to Meta, Amazon, Apple, and TikTok, ending their anticompetitive playbooks of acquisitions and tying. Trump’s message is unmistakable: the days of unelected tech oligarchs building empires without consequences are over, paving the way for broader breakups that unleash American innovation.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.