Product1 publisher3 min readPublished
Google must connect AdX and DFP to Prebid within 60 days
The unsealed 106-page opinion keeps Google's exchange intact but ends the rule that DFP publishers route through it, and it sets six years of outside oversight whose scope the reporting still disagrees on.
The Product Desk · Product desk
What happened
- Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled on 2 September that Google would not have to sell AdX, and her full opinion was unsealed after both sides had two weeks to seek redactions of confidential material.
- The remedies run for six years, the term Google proposed, against the 15 years sought by the Justice Department and the states that joined the case.
- Brinkema turned down a demand to open-source DFP's auction code as well as the government's bid to force a sale of AdX, where publishers pay a 20% fee.
Compiled by The Product DeskSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- decision Every publisher on DFP now owns a choice it could not make before: whether AdX is worth its 20% fee when competing exchanges can bid through Prebid into the same server.
- contradiction Reuters and AdExchanger describe different monitors, one internal to Google and one court-appointed with source code access, so a publisher planning to complain about auction behavior cannot yet tell who will hear it.
- constraint Because the scope is worldwide, publishers outside the US get the same interoperability without waiting for their own regulator, and Google has to run one auction configuration everywhere.
- precedent A court accepted the defendant's own six-year clock over the government's 15, which sets the number future antitrust defendants will anchor on when they propose remedy terms.
The person this lands on is the ad ops lead at a publisher who runs Google's DFP ad server and has been sending inventory through AdX because DFP required it. That requirement ends [9]. In its place, AdX has to bid into rival publisher ad servers on the same terms it offers DFP, according to AdExchanger [10], and both AdX and DFP have to connect to Prebid, the open-source header-bidding framework publishers adopted to get competing bids outside Google's control [11].
Two of the obligations are things a publisher can actually inspect: real-time data on winning and losing bids, and documentation explaining how DFP picks auction winners [12]. Judge Leonie Brinkema turned down the government's request to open-source DFP's auction code [13]. So the record of how Google's own server chooses a winner is a document Google writes, checked by whoever ends up monitoring.
Who that is depends on which account you read. Reuters reported that Google should appoint an internal antitrust compliance monitor [6]. AdExchanger described a court-appointed technical monitor with full access to Google's staff, systems and source code [7]. Courthouse News said both sides proposed a monitor and a technical committee [8]. For a publisher that suspects its bids are being throttled, an internal compliance officer is someone to write to. A court's technical monitor with source code access is someone who can look.
The clock runs six years, the term Google proposed, against the 15 years the Justice Department and the states that joined the case asked for [4]. That is 40 percent of the government's term, nine years shorter [1]. Courthouse News reported that the court can extend the period if the judgment has not achieved its goal [5].
Brinkema wrote that the 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" [3]. Courthouse News reported that she also referred to a "lack of trust that Google will comply with an order from this court," even while choosing behavioral remedies over a breakup [17]. Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute called the decision "more proof the U.S. judiciary is abdicating its congressionally mandated duty to apply antitrust laws," Courthouse News reported [18].
The scope is worldwide, and Brinkema rejected Google's argument that the rules should be limited to the US [14]. "For Google, a worldwide application of the final judgment would entail product changes that are consistent across all regions," she wrote [15].
For anyone scoping integration work against the 60-day deadline AdExchanger reported [16], sort each Google dependency twice. First: is the behavior you are counting on written into the order, or is it Google's discretion? Prebid connectivity, equal-terms bidding into rival servers, real-time bid data and the DFP documentation are in the first column. Latency, support response and the 20% fee AdX charges publishers [13] are in the second. Second: does the thing you are building have to work in year seven? Anything in the mandated column that you need past the six-year term needs a fallback that does not rest on the judgment.
What to watch
- Whether the entered final judgment names a court-appointed technical monitor with source code access or leaves the appointment to Google, which the current reporting does not settle.
- Any Google challenge to the worldwide scope Brinkema affirmed over its objection.
- Whether the European Commission keeps pressing for the breakup it argued was the only fix now that a US court has ordered behavioral remedies instead.