The remedies trial in the U.S. Department of Justice’s case about our ad tech business concludes today. Testimony showed that the DOJ’s proposal to break up Google Ad Manager is unworkable and would create significant uncertainty and disruption for advertisers and publishers. By contrast, our proposals directly responded to the Court’s ruling without making it harder and more expensive for small businesses to reach consumers and grow.

Here’s a look at some testimony and comments from a range of independent companies:

Tailored, behavioral changes are workable and address the court’s findings.

Even witnesses called by the DOJ acknowledged that Google’s proposal would address the Court’s concerns:

• James Avery, CEO of rival ad server Kevel, testified that a direct, non-preferential connection to Google’s exchange would “resolve [the] concerns in this case.”
• DOJ’s lead economist, Professor Robin Lee, admitted that divestiture would not be needed if behavioral remedies were well-crafted and enforced.

The DOJ’s proposal won’t work.

The DOJ’s proposal to force a divestiture of Google Ad Manager would require a massive technical undertaking that a range of experts testified simply wouldn’t work.

• Google expert Professor Jason Nieh called a proposed breakup a “highly complicated software engineering undertaking, with… no guarantee of success.”
• Ad Manager’s director of engineering, Glenn Bernston, added that “It makes no sense. One can build it, but it won't work.”

DOJ’s proposal will cause uncertainty and disruption for publishers and advertisers, disproportionately impacting American businesses.

Trial testimony and independent parties confirmed that the DOJ’s proposals would significantly hurt small businesses that use our ad tech tools to reach customers and monetize their content.

• Jeff Taxdahl, founder of Thread Logic, small-business owner, highlighted the issues with divestiture: “If Google’s ad tech tools are broken, it’s not clear what will take their place. A fragmented system would lack Google’s reach and efficiency, so we’d have to spend far more time managing multiple ad and analytics platforms. Our ads would be more expensive — but less effective. That’s a one-two punch for America’s businesses.”
• wikiHow CEO Elizabeth Douglas told the Court: “I’m here today because I’m worried for my business… we require the revenue that we get from our advertising to innovate and to run our business and it scares me to think that it is going to potentially be changing.” She also shared that “there's just no SSP that I trust as much as Google, in particular with the consistency that Google pays us every month and supports us with our problems.”
• Pinterest CEO Bill Ready explained why breaking Google won’t fix the ad market: “a new owner with different incentives—especially one dominant on the buy side or an AI platform optimizing for unknown objectives—could recreate the same dynamics in a new form. And holding that successor accountable could take years.”

We've said from the beginning that the DOJ's case ignores immense competition and dynamism of the ad tech market. Ravi Goel, CEO of PubMatic, echoed this at trial, saying ad tech “evolves at a very high pace … a relentless pace of change.” We'll continue to advocate for a resolution that addresses the Court's concerns without stifling the growth of American businesses that choose to use our tools to grow.