In a federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, a pivotal legal battle is unfolding that could reshape the future of digital advertising and the broader internet economy. On September 22, 2025, Google and the U.S. Justice Department commenced a two-week trial to determine the fate of Google’s digital advertising business—a sector Judge Leonie Brinkema has already declared an illegal monopoly. The outcome could force one of the world’s most powerful tech companies to break up a business that generates the bulk of its revenue and supports thousands of websites worldwide.
The trial, presided over by Judge Brinkema, is not about whether Google monopolized the advertising technology market—that decision was already made in April. Instead, the current proceedings focus on remedies: How should competition be restored? What corrective action is both fair and effective? The Justice Department has made its intentions clear. “The purpose of a remedy is doing what is necessary to restore competition,” said Julia Tarver Wood, representing the department’s antitrust division, during opening statements. She argued that Google’s manipulation of the market is “antithetical to free market competition,” and that “the means to cheat are buried in computer codes and algorithms.”
Google, for its part, is pushing back hard. The company’s attorney, Karen Dunn, described the government’s proposal as both “reckless and radical,” contending that the Justice Department is essentially trying to remove Google from the competitive landscape altogether. Google insists it has already made significant changes to its Ad Manager system, including introducing more options and pricing flexibility, in an effort to address the monopoly concerns flagged by Judge Brinkema. The company maintains that these adjustments should be sufficient to resolve the issues at hand.
At the heart of this dispute is the complex network of digital advertising technology that Google has spent 17 years building. This system is not just a cash cow for Alphabet Inc.—the parent company’s services division raked in $305 billion last year, mostly from digital advertising—it is also the financial backbone for thousands of websites that depend on ad revenue to survive. The Justice Department argues that only a breakup—forcing Google to sell off key parts of its ad tech business—will restore genuine competition and innovation in the market. Google, unsurprisingly, sees things differently. The company’s lawyers warn that such a drastic move would “invite disruption and damage” to consumers and the entire internet ecosystem.
The stakes could hardly be higher. The case was filed in 2023, under the administration of President Joe Biden, marking a significant escalation in the U.S. government’s efforts to rein in Big Tech. The trial comes on the heels of another high-profile antitrust showdown involving Google’s search engine. In that case, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta found Google’s search business to be an illegal monopoly but ultimately opted for a less severe remedy than the Justice Department had sought. The government had proposed that Google be forced to sell its popular Chrome browser, but Judge Mehta decided that such a dramatic intervention was unnecessary, especially given the rapid changes being brought about by artificial intelligence in the search market.
Interestingly, the reverberations from the search monopoly case are being felt in the current trial. Judge Brinkema has asked both sides to address Judge Mehta’s decision, signaling that the outcome of the previous case could influence her own thinking on the appropriate remedy for Google’s advertising dominance. Google’s lawyers have already seized on this, arguing in court papers that AI technology—used by rivals like Meta Platforms—is fundamentally changing the way digital ads are bought and sold, lessening the need for the Justice Department’s “radical” proposals. In their words, the government is “fighting for a remedy that would vanquish a past that has been overtaken by technological and market transformations in the way digital ads are consumed.”
The financial markets have been watching these developments closely. After Judge Mehta’s relatively restrained ruling in the search case, Alphabet’s stock price soared, gaining 20% and helping the company become only the fourth public firm to reach a $3 trillion market value. That’s a staggering $1 trillion increase since Judge Brinkema first branded Google’s ad technology as a monopoly in April. But the uncertainty surrounding the current trial has injected some volatility; on the first day of the proceedings, Alphabet’s shares dipped about 1%, closing at $252.53.
For the Justice Department, the trial is about more than just Google. It’s a test case for how the U.S. government will handle the immense power wielded by tech giants whose platforms underpin much of the digital economy. The remedy sought—a forced divestiture of key ad tech assets—would be the most aggressive antitrust action taken against a technology company in decades. Supporters of the breakup argue it’s the only way to ensure a level playing field for smaller competitors and to foster innovation. Critics, however, warn that such drastic intervention could backfire, disrupting the online advertising ecosystem and harming the very publishers and consumers the government claims to protect.
Google’s defense hinges on the argument that the digital advertising market is already changing rapidly, thanks to technological advances and new entrants. The company points to competitors like Meta Platforms, whose AI-driven ad networks are reshaping the industry. Google insists that its own reforms—especially to its Ad Manager system—have addressed the core concerns, and that further intervention would be unnecessary and potentially damaging.
Yet, the Justice Department remains unconvinced. It maintains that Google’s dominance is not a relic of the past but an ongoing threat to competition. The department’s lawyers argue that without a strong remedy, Google will continue to wield outsized influence over who gets to advertise, how much they pay, and which websites survive in an ever-more competitive digital landscape.
As the trial continues, both sides will present evidence and call witnesses in an attempt to sway Judge Brinkema. The judge’s eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications—not just for Google and its competitors, but for the future of the internet itself. And the story won’t end there; Google has already vowed to appeal any remedy it deems too harsh, ensuring that this legal saga will continue to play out in higher courts for months, if not years, to come.
For now, the world watches as two titans—the U.S. government and Google—battle over the rules that will govern the digital economy for a generation. However Judge Brinkema rules, the outcome will echo across Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and every corner of the web that relies on digital ads to survive.
