News · Rules & courts

Google must open its ad exchange to rival tools for six years under a monitor, unsealed opinion shows

The judge found a breakup 'neither realistic nor needed'. Google must connect AdX to the open-source Prebid and to rival ad servers, and let publishers export their data.

Catching up: the original came out on . This story was published later, when the site opened.

Google must link its ad exchange to rival tools for six years, court says

Grade 1 · Primary

Source: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

What changed
The unsealed opinion in the US ad tech case requires Google to integrate AdX and DFP with Prebid and rivals, share data, and bid without discrimination, for six years.
Who it affects
Google's open-web display ad tech: its ad exchange AdX, publisher ad server DFP and advertiser tool AdWords, and the publishers and rivals that use them.
What it does not tell you
How well it will work. The final judgment is still being drafted, and the monitor and technical committee are expected to take about a year to set up.

The full story Check the source

Google must connect its ad exchange to rival ad tech and let publishers take their data elsewhere, under a court opinion unsealed on 16 September in the US government's ad tech case [1].

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema found that "structural remedies are neither realistic nor needed", and that behavioural remedies will be enough to "effectively pry open to competition" the markets Google monopolised [1].

She adopted Google's proposed six-year term for the final judgment, rather than the 15 years the government sought [1].

What it covers

The opinion requires interoperability between Google's AdX and DFP and Prebid, the open-source header-bidding standard, and between AdX and rival publisher ad servers [1].

Google must also share data with publishers, publish technical documentation for DFP, and follow rules against discriminatory bidding. A monitor and a technical committee will oversee compliance [1].

The court expects the monitor, the committee and the technical work to take about a year to set up [1].

The Justice Department called the ruling "a significant victory" and said it was reviewing its options. Its release does not mention that the breakup it asked for was rejected [2].

What it does not tell you

The final wording. The parties must still agree a proposed final judgment [1].

Whether either side will appeal [1][2].

Sources and their grades

  1. US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, United States et al. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-108, Memorandum Opinion (Dkt. 1858). Read 29 September 2026. Grade 1 · Primary Signed 2 September 2026; unsealed on 16 September (Dkt. 1860). 106 pages.
  2. US Department of Justice, Department of Justice Again Wins Substantial Relief Against Google. Read 29 September 2026. Grade 5 · Own claim The government's own account, 16 September 2026; it does not mention that the court rejected its request for a breakup.

A grade says how much weight a source will take, from 1 (a body that can compel an answer and has nothing to sell) to 5 (somebody describing what they sell, or themselves). The standard sets out what each grade may be used for.

Filed under Advertising, Competition, Google

Comments

Commenting needs an account, made with nothing but an email address. A first comment is read before it appears.

More news

See all