In a dramatic twist in the ongoing battle between **big tech and regulatory oversight**, the **US government** has escalated its campaign against Google, demanding a significant overhaul of its highly lucrative advertising technology operations. On May 2, a federal court in Virginia heard arguments asserting that the tech giant has established an **illegal monopoly** in the ad tech sector. **Julia Tarver Wood**, representing the government, articulated a striking stance: “We have a defendant who has found ways to defy” the law, she declared, urging the judge to reject Google’s claims that it would voluntarily reform its behavior. “Leaving a recidivist monopolist intact is not appropriate to solve the issue,” she emphasized.
This latest demand marks the second time the US government has sought to dismantle aspects of Google’s empire, following previous calls for the divestment of its **Chrome browser** amid concerns over the company’s dominance in search engine technology. According to government claims, Google exerts overwhelming control over the market for **publishing banner ads** on a wide array of websites, encompassing those owned by small creators and news outlets alike.
The upcoming court hearing aims to outline the next steps in the trial, set for **September**, focused on identifying solutions to restore competitive balance in the ad market as dictated by the judge’s ruling.
A Call for Break-Up
During last year’s trial’s initial phase, plaintiffs argued that the vast majority of websites rely on Google’s **ad software products**, which effectively narrows the options for publishers, leaving them trapped within its pricing and technology systems. District Court Judge **Leonie Brinkema** largely supported this viewpoint, ruling that Google has constructed an illegal monopoly over the advertising software used by publishers, even as she partially dismissed claims regarding the tools employed by advertisers.
The government has committed to using this trial to recommend that Google **spin off** its ad publisher and exchange operations. With doubts surrounding the company’s willingness to change, Tarver Wood stressed, “Behavioral remedies are not sufficient because you can’t prevent Google from finding a new way to dominate.”
Mediation Encouraged: A Path to Resolution?
In contrast, Google representatives proposed a solution, suggesting they be bound to a commitment ensuring transparency with advertisers and publishers on its advertising technology platforms. **Karen Dunn**, the company’s attorney, acknowledged the “trust issues” highlighted during the proceedings and indicated a willingness to accept monitoring to enforce any agreements reached that satisfy the court.
Despite these offers, Google maintains that calls for divestment are inappropriate in this context, a claim quickly dismissed by Judge Brinkema. Encouraging a more collaborative approach, she urged both parties to seek mediation, highlighting that a mutually agreed-upon solution would be both **cost-effective** and more efficient than prolonged contentious litigation.
