Monopolist Google gets ‘behavioral’ guardrails and a monitoring plan

Finding that divestiture is neither realistic nor needed, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema wrote behavioral remedies will be sufficient to “effectively pry open to competition” the ad tech markets.ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) — Google must submit to monitoring as part of a plan to atone for a history of monopolistic behavior over ad tech markets, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia wrote in a memorandum Wednesday.In the memo, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema expounds upon a ruling earlier this month in which the Bill Clinton appointee rejected calls to separate the tech giant from its lucrative ad tech division. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “rationale for seeking divestiture boils down to a lack of trust that Google will comply with an order from this court and an unrealistic desire for certainty,” she wrote.Instead, the judge calls for “behavioral” remedies. In the newly released memorandum, Brinkema outlines new limits for Google. Specifically, both the tech titan and the Department of Justice, which brought the case, proposed establishing a Monitor and Technical Committee to oversee Google’s compliance with the court’s final judgment, Brinkema noted.There will be boundaries governing how the tech giant interacts with dotcoms operating in the tech ecosystem. The remedies range from a basic data-sharing provision to an injunction barring specific conduct the court found anticompetitive. The court will prohibit discriminatory bidding and require Google to integrate its ad exchange with rival publisher ad servers.Google had attempted to limit the judgment, arguing a U.S. court “should not impose an injunction that would operate outside the nation’s borders because of international comity principles.” But Brinkema disagreed: “For Google, a worldwide application of the final judgment would entail product changes that are consistent across all regions, in line with its current operations.”Behavioral remedies “will be sufficient to effectively pry open to competition the ad tech markets that were injured by Google’s unlawful conduct and prevent Google from reverting to anticompetitive conduct in these markets,” the judge concluded.Google wanted the final judgment to last for a term of six years; the DOJ wanted oversight to extend more than twice as long. Google’s proposal for a six-year term is appropriate, she wrote, but if the final judgment has not been fully satisfied within that time, the court has the authority to extend it.Google’s critics have been unconvinced the judgment will work. When Brinkema’s decision was first announced earlier this month, Barry Lynn, executive director of the nonprofit Open Markets Institute, said the judge had offered “more proof the U.S. judiciary is abdicating its congressionally mandated duty to apply the text and spirit of the nation’s antitrust laws.”The judgment has been long in coming. The government filed suit against Google in 2023. One year ago, Brinkema ruled Google had violated antitrust laws. She charged that Google’s grasp of tech tools allowed it to wield monopolistic power in the advertising industry, violating the country’s antitrust law.The DOJ had proposed structural remedies in the form of the divestiture of key programs — specifically AdX, Google’s ad exchange, along with a proposal to open-source DoubleClick for Publishers’ final auction logic. But in a hearing last year, Brinkema expressed doubts, noting Google would likely appeal such a decision, which would delay implementation.Google’s rival ad executives have complained the tech titan lacks transparency. And in recent years, Google has fought charges that it operated its massive enterprise as a monopoly. Some of those businesses are suing. Google was also convicted of antitrust violations in a case involving its search engine. In that case, a federal judge also rejected the DOJ’s request to order Google to divest.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads