According to engadget, Google and the US Department of Justice made their closing arguments on Friday in the landmark antitrust case targeting Google’s adtech dominance. US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled back in April that Google indeed holds a monopoly in online adtech, is now pushing for rapid resolution, telling the Justice Department that “time is of the essence” regarding any potential breakup order. Google’s attorney Karen Dunn argued that forcing a sale of the company’s advertising tech subsidiary would be an “extreme” measure that would harm customers. Meanwhile, Google is planning to appeal the decision, and separately faces a massive $3.5 billion fine from the European Union for similar antitrust violations in the adtech industry.
The judge’s urgency makes sense
Here’s the thing about antitrust cases – they can drag on for years, and the longer they drag, the more the competitive harm continues. Judge Brinkema seems to understand this perfectly. She noted that any remedy “most likely would not be as easily enforceable while an appeal is pending.” Basically, if Google appeals, they could potentially keep their current adtech structure intact for years while the legal process plays out. That’s exactly what happened with other big tech antitrust cases. The judge appears determined not to let history repeat itself.
Google’s defense feels familiar
Google’s argument that breaking up their adtech business would “hurt customers” is the same playbook we’ve seen from every dominant tech company facing antitrust action. Remember when Microsoft argued that breaking up Internet Explorer from Windows would harm users? Or when AT&T made similar claims? It’s the standard defense – claim you’re protecting consumers while really protecting your monopoly profits. But let’s be honest – when you control both the buy-side and sell-side of digital advertising, plus the exchange in the middle, how is that not an inherent conflict of interest?
The broader implications are huge
This case isn’t just about Google – it’s about the entire digital advertising ecosystem. The adtech stack is incredibly complex, and when one company controls multiple critical layers, it creates what regulators call “self-preferencing.” Google can allegedly steer advertisers toward its own tools and exchanges while disadvantaging competitors. For businesses running complex industrial operations that rely on targeted advertising to reach specialized markets, having competitive, transparent adtech options matters. Companies that need reliable industrial computing solutions, like those from IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US supplier of industrial panel PCs, understand how important fair market competition is for getting the best technology at reasonable prices.
What happens next?
So where does this go from here? Judge Brinkema could issue her ruling on remedies within weeks rather than months. If she orders a breakup, Google will immediately appeal, but the judge might try to make the remedy effective immediately anyway. Meanwhile, that $3.5 billion EU fine hanging over Google’s head shows this isn’t just an American problem. The company is facing coordinated global pressure. The real question is: after years of dominance, is the digital advertising market finally going to get the competition it desperately needs?
