Breaking up (Google) is hard to do — at least, that’s what the tech giant argued this week in a Virginia courtroom. As the Department of Justice pushes for a court-ordered sale of Google’s ad tech tools, the company warned that such a move could harm publishers, advertisers, and even competition itself.
In its defense, Google compared the potential breakup to monumental feats like “going to Mars” or “replacing Michael Jordan” — technically possible but massively complex. The case marks the DOJ’s most aggressive challenge yet to Google’s dominance in online advertising, and the outcome could reshape the digital ad market for years to come.
The Department of Justice argues that Google’s control over both the tools advertisers use to buy ads and the platforms where those ads appear gives it an unfair advantage. Prosecutors say the only way to ensure fair competition is to force Google to sell off key parts of its ad business — specifically, its AdX exchange and components of DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP).
According to the DOJ, this divestiture is technically feasible and necessary to stop Google from finding “new ways to wield its dominance” at the expense of publishers and advertisers.
Google, however, insists that breaking up (Google) is hard to do — and even dangerous. Glenn Berntson, Google Ad Manager’s engineering director, testified that a divestiture would be a “massive undertaking.” He likened it to trying to go to Mars, warning that separating AdX from the rest of Google’s infrastructure would create new technical and operational chaos.
The company also raised concerns that the breakup could disrupt relationships with advertisers, cause key engineers to leave, and make digital ad systems less reliable. In short, Google claims the DOJ’s plan could hurt the very publishers it’s meant to protect.
Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presides over the case, gave mixed signals throughout the hearing. While she acknowledged Google’s influence over the ad ecosystem, she also pressed the DOJ on whether such a drastic remedy is realistic.
This isn’t the first time Google has faced such scrutiny. After fending off a similar breakup attempt in the DOJ’s search monopoly case, the company is now fighting to keep its ad empire intact.
If the court sides with the DOJ, it could lead to one of the biggest forced tech divestitures in U.S. history. But publishers — many of whom rely on Google’s ad platforms for revenue — could face short-term disruptions.
Critics warn that smaller media outlets might lose access to valuable ad tech tools, while large advertisers could shift budgets elsewhere. In the end, even if Google’s dominance is reduced, the digital ad market might become more fragmented and less efficient.
The case underscores a broader trend: Washington’s renewed focus on reining in Big Tech. Companies like Meta, Amazon, and Apple have all faced antitrust investigations in recent years. But Google’s ad tech ecosystem — which connects billions of users, advertisers, and publishers — sits at the heart of how the internet is monetized.
As one witness put it, “Breaking up Google isn’t impossible — it’s just incredibly hard to do.”
Whether the court chooses to take that risk could redefine not just Google’s future, but the very structure of the online economy.
Access our platform effortlessly on-the-go through our user-friendly mobile apps.
𝗦𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁, 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴. We’re more than just a social platform — from jobs and blogs to events and daily chats, we bring people and ideas together in one simple, meaningful space.
 Is Hard To Do: Inside The DOJ’s Ad Tech Battle){kind=link}