On this page · 12 sections
- Where the case stands on 7 November 2026
- Ordered, rejected and still disputed
- What the remedies change inside Google Ad Manager
- What the court refused to order
- What the DOJ and Google have said
- The EU and India: parallel cases, different stages
- What ad ops teams should do now
- Decision table: pick your path
- Worked example: reading a revenue change
- Notes for India-based publishers
- How eCorpIT can help
- References
Summary. On 2 September 2026, Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refused to make Google sell its AdX exchange in United States v. Google LLC (1:23-cv-00108) and accepted most of the behavioural remedies both sides had proposed. The 106-page opinion was unsealed on 16 September. Google must connect AdX and DFP, the ad server inside Google Ad Manager, to Prebid, let AdX bid into rival ad servers, let publishers export DFP data and AdX bid data, and stop Google Ads favouring Google's own tools, under a monitor for six years with worldwide reach. A joint proposed final judgment filed on 2 October 2026 still marks disputed wording, such as whether the AdX adapter for Prebid is due 6 or 12 months after the effective date. We found no signed final judgment as of 7 November 2026. It takes effect 60 days after entry, and Alphabet plans to appeal once it is entered. Nothing changes for publishers yet: map your Google Ad Manager dependency, update Prebid, decide on Prebid Server and record a revenue baseline.
About this article. For ad operations and revenue leads at publishers, especially in India, who run Google Ad Manager or Prebid. We read the court's opinion and order of 2 September 2026, the unsealing order of 16 September 2026 and the joint proposed final judgment of 2 October 2026 (docket entries 1857, 1858, 1860 and 1861) in the public CourtListener copies, which may not hold every filing. We also checked the Department of Justice release, Google's blog posts, Alphabet's quarterly report of 29 October 2026, the European Commission's fine announcement, the Competition Commission of India's order of 1 August 2025, and Prebid.org and Google Ad Manager documentation, as at 7 November 2026. This is general information, not legal advice: the binding terms depend on the judgment the court signs. No vendor paid for inclusion. Researched with AI assistance and reviewed by our editorial team.
Where the case stands on 7 November 2026
On 17 April 2025 the same court found that Google had unlawfully acquired and maintained monopoly power in two worldwide markets for open-web display advertising, publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, and had unlawfully tied DFP to AdX. It rejected the separate claim about an advertiser ad network market. The remedies trial ran for 11 days with 26 witnesses. The dates below come from the docket, the Department of Justice and Alphabet.
| Date | Event | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 17 April 2025 | Liability opinion: DFP and AdX monopolies, unlawful tie | Decided |
| 5 September 2025 | European Commission fines Google €2.95 billion over ad tech self-preferencing | Decided; Google has appealed |
| 14 November 2025 | Google publishes its EU compliance plan, with no break-up | No Commission decision found |
| 2 September 2026 | Remedies opinion and order filed under seal: no AdX sale | Decided |
| 16 September 2026 | Opinion unsealed; DOJ press release | Public |
| 2 October 2026 | Joint proposed final judgment filed, disputed clauses marked | Awaiting the court |
| Date of entry | Judge signs the final judgment | Not entered as far as we found |
| Entry plus 60 days | Effective date; six-year term starts | Pending |
| Effective date plus 3 to 18 months | Deadlines in the proposed text | Pending |
An appeal could move these dates. The proposed text, agreed by both sides, pauses every deadline day for day while any stay ordered by the district court, the Fourth Circuit or the Supreme Court is in force.
Ordered, rejected and still disputed
Ordered means the court decided it in the opinion. The wording binds only once the court signs a final judgment, and the 2 October draft marks the clauses still disputed.
| Item | Status on 7 November 2026 |
|---|---|
| AdX and DFP integrations with Prebid | Ordered; deadline for the AdX adapter disputed (6 or 12 months) |
| AdX real-time bids into rival ad servers on equivalent terms | Ordered; deadline disputed (6 or 12 months) |
| No DFP-AdX tie; no First Look, Last Look or Unified Pricing Rules for indirect deals | Ordered |
| DFP data export, AdX bid data with losing bids, per-impression auction file | Ordered; some trigger and scope wording disputed |
| Google Ads: no direct bidding into DFP, no ownership-based preference | Ordered |
| Monitor, technical committee, compliance officer; six years; worldwide | Ordered; who proposes the monitor slate is disputed |
| Deadlines outside the United States | Disputed: Google proposes up to 24 months after the effective date |
| AdX sale, open-sourcing DFP's auction logic, contingent DFP sale | Rejected |
| 50% revenue escrow, DV360 remedies, all-format data sharing, broad anti-circumvention clauses, 15-year term | Rejected |
What the remedies change inside Google Ad Manager
Prebid integrations for AdX and DFP
Prebid is the open-source header bidding project: Prebid.js runs in the browser, Prebid Server runs the auction on a server and Prebid Mobile covers apps. Its ecosystem supports more than 300 demand partners. The court had found that Google kept AdX out of Prebid auctions.
The opinion requires an interface that lets Prebid request real-time AdX bids for all indirect open-web display inventory, and a separate interface and server-to-server link so DFP publishers can route all indirect and programmatic direct demand (programmatic guaranteed and preferred deals) through Prebid. A publisher control will make AdX answer either through Prebid or directly from DFP, not both.
In the 2 October draft, Google would publish adapter code for Prebid.js or Prebid Server, with these deadlines from the effective date:
- AdX adapter for Prebid: 6 months (plaintiffs) or 12 months (Google).
- DFP link to Prebid Server for open and private auctions: 12 months, agreed.
- Programmatic guaranteed and preferred deals through Prebid Server: 15 months, agreed.
- The publisher control that picks one AdX path: 6 or 12 months.
Still unknown: which signals each adapter passes and how consent travels. The draft lets Google withhold data its privacy policies or the law bar it from sharing. Watch the signed judgment and Prebid release notes.
AdX bids into rival ad servers
AdX must submit real-time bids to competing publisher ad servers in the same way it bids into DFP today. The draft spells this out: AdX must respond in a functionally equivalent manner and on materially identical terms, must not charge a higher revenue share, must not deliberately add latency, and must publish specifications for other ad servers. For a publisher weighing a move off DFP, this matters most, because leaving DFP used to mean losing direct access to AdX demand.
Floors, First Look, Last Look and header bidding trafficking
Google may not enforce policies that tie DFP to AdX or bring back First Look or Last Look, and must deprecate Unified Pricing Rules for all indirect transactions, so publishers can set different floors for different exchanges. It also may not offer DFP fee discounts in return for uniform floors. The opinion cites a plaintiffs' expert calculation that removing Unified Pricing Rules alone would cut AdX's 20% take rate to about 16.6%. Treat that as one side's expert estimate, not a forecast for your account.
One agreed clause matters for smaller publishers. Google Ad Manager's header bidding trafficking feature for the Prebid wrapper is currently listed as available only in Google Ad Manager 360. The draft requires Google to offer it to all DFP publishers within 6 months of the effective date, whatever their size or subscription. It also requires separate contracts for AdX and DFP, and a written notice to publishers that using one does not require the other.
Data export and auction transparency
Under the draft, publishers can export their DFP configuration and historical data, without charge, within 3 months of the effective date, and AdX bid data, including losing bids, becomes available within 12 months. Still disputed: whether export is open to publishers only evaluating a switch (plaintiffs) or just to those who have chosen another ad server (Google). A non-Google bidder can ask for its identity to be withheld.
Instead of open-sourcing DFP's logic, Google must document how DFP picks the winning ad and supply a data file showing candidate prices and adjustments for each impression served. The draft sets this at 12 months, on request, with each file covering seven days; the plaintiffs want daily files.
Google Ads bidding rules
Google Ads (formerly AdWords) may not build a direct bidding link into DFP and may not favour AdX or Google's other tools because Google owns them. It may still integrate directly with Prebid, and it may prefer AdX only for advertiser return on investment, such as better fraud protection or impression quality. Its use of Google first-party data to price a bid for a specific user must not depend on whether the request came through AdX. DV360, AdSense and AdMob sit outside the judgment.
For advertisers, these rules govern how Google's buying tool bids, not your campaign settings. The February 2027 change to Display Network budgets in Search campaigns is unrelated.
Monitor, term and scope
A monitor chosen from a slate of three candidates can interview Google staff and inspect documents, systems and source code, helped by a three-member technical committee and an internal compliance officer, at Google's cost. The six-year term runs from the effective date. Only open-web display is covered: in-stream video, native, app and connected TV inventory are outside.
The opinion says the judgment will apply worldwide. In the draft, though, Google proposes that its deadlines apply to the United States, with each remedy reaching other countries within 24 months of the effective date, or later where local law requires. The plaintiffs omit that clause, and the court has not ruled on it.
What the court refused to order
The plaintiffs, the United States and 17 states, asked for an AdX sale, open-sourcing of DFP's auction logic and a later sale of the rest of DFP if needed. The court found structural relief neither realistic nor needed, for these reasons:
- Structural relief needs a significant causal link between the conduct and the monopoly, a higher bar than liability, and the court did not find enough evidence of one.
- No viable AdX buyer was identified. Index Exchange, PubMatic and Kevel showed interest, but none was ready to commit.
- AdX also handles app, native and in-stream video ads, so a sale would reach beyond the conduct found unlawful.
- A divestiture would take years, while the opinion, citing Google's closing argument, says every behavioural remedy would be in effect within 15 months.
- Open-sourcing was not tied to the liability findings, and a DFP sale risked raising costs for a product Google provides free to over 90% of its publisher customers.
The court also rejected a 50% revenue escrow, remedies on DV360, data sharing for all ad formats, broadly worded anti-retaliation and anti-circumvention clauses (it kept an anti-reprisal policy for employees) and a 15-year term.
The opinion records how far the market has shifted. Using Google Ads as a sample, indirect open-web display fell from over 40% of impressions in January 2019 to 11% in June 2025.
What the DOJ and Google have said
The Department of Justice's 16 September release called the ruling a significant win, summarised the remedies and said the department was reviewing the opinion to consider its options.
Google said in May 2025 that it disagreed with the liability ruling on Google Ad Manager and would appeal, while offering behavioural fixes, including AdX bids for rival ad servers and an end to Unified Pricing Rules. In its 29 October 2026 quarterly report, Alphabet said it plans to appeal the adverse part of the April 2025 decision once the final judgment is entered, and may appeal aspects of the September 2026 decision.
The EU and India: parallel cases, different stages
European Commission
On 5 September 2025 the Commission fined Google €2.95 billion for favouring AdX through DFP and through its buying tools, gave it 60 days to propose how to end its conflicts of interest, and said its preliminary view was that only a divestment would do so. Google's plan, published on 14 November 2025, avoids a break-up, lets publishers set different minimum prices for different bidders in Google Ad Manager and promises more interoperability. Alphabet says it appealed the decision in November 2025 and the appeal is pending.
We found no Commission decision accepting or rejecting the plan as of 7 November 2026, so for EU publishers the US remedies are the ones with a timetable. Our article on the DMA fine and EU search results covers the separate DMA track.
India: the CCI's consolidated probe
On 1 August 2025 the Competition Commission of India took up a complaint by the Alliance of Digital India Foundation about Google's ad tech stack (Case No. 23(1) of 2024) and clubbed it with four cases already under investigation (41 of 2021, 10 of 2022, 36 of 2022 and 34 of 2024). Its Director General must file one consolidated report. The allegations include tying DFP and DV360 to AdX, Last Look and Unified Pricing Rules. We found no Director General report or final order as of 7 November 2026.
What ad ops teams should do now
Nothing in the order requires publishers to act. The risk is being unready when integrations appear, or misreading a revenue change.
1. Map your Google Ad Manager dependency
List every job Google Ad Manager does for you: direct campaigns, Prebid line items and price buckets, AdX and Open Bidding demand, AdSense backfill, video, app inventory, reporting and billing. Mark which items are indirect open-web display, which the remedies cover, and which are outside (AdSense, AdMob, video and app inventory). If you sell through a Multiple Customer Management partner or a managed Prebid wrapper, ask in writing how they will handle the AdX adapter, and whether your contract lets you export your own data.
2. Bring Prebid up to date
Prebid recommends upgrading at least every six months. Check your Prebid.js version, floors module, analytics adapters and consent handling. Client-side setups typically use 5 to 15 demand partners; if you are near the top of that range, decide which weaker partner you would drop to make room for AdX without adding latency.
3. Decide on Prebid Server
Prebid Server runs the auction on a server, supports app, AMP and connected TV use cases, and has more than 230 server-side bid adapters. You can use a hosted service from a Prebid.org member or run it yourself, and Prebid warns that self-hosting is much harder than Prebid.js. The proposed DFP link runs server-to-server through Prebid Server, so publishers already on it can test sooner.
4. Rebuild your floor strategy
With Unified Pricing Rules gone for indirect deals, you can set different floors for AdX and other exchanges. That can raise or lower yield. Export current floor rules and bid distribution first, then A/B test by ad unit and geography instead of switching the whole site.
5. Prepare a home for exported data
Decide where exported DFP data, AdX bid data and auction files will land (BigQuery, Snowflake or a lakehouse), who owns the schema and how long you keep it. The plaintiffs want the historical files to carry an unhashed identifier for each impression, so treat them as potential personal data under GDPR or India's DPDP Act and check consent before joining them with analytics or CRM data. Our DPDP guide for GA4, ad pixels and CRM covers the consent side.
6. Baseline revenue before anything moves
Capture at least eight weeks of metrics by demand source and ad unit: eCPM, fill, AdX win rate, bid density, timeouts, page latency, viewability and revenue per thousand ad requests. Without it you cannot tell a remedy effect from seasonality or a traffic loss.
Decision table: pick your path
| Your situation | Suggested path for 2027 | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Small site on Google Ad Manager, no in-house ad ops | Stay; keep your partner; baseline metrics; watch for header bidding trafficking | Remedies come to you |
| Mid-size site on Prebid.js with Google Ad Manager | Update Prebid, plan the AdX slot, test per-exchange floors | Ready to test at launch |
| Large publisher with engineers | Evaluate Prebid Server and a log warehouse | DFP link runs through Prebid Server |
| Considering a non-Google ad server | Wait for the signed terms, then pilot | Equivalence terms decide viability |
| Mostly app or video inventory | Expect little direct change | Remedies cover open-web display |
| EU publisher | Follow the US timetable; watch the Commission | EU outcome still open |
| India-based publisher | Follow your size tier; track the CCI | Non-US deadlines still disputed |
Worked example: reading a revenue change
The numbers are illustrative only, not a forecast or benchmark. They show why a baseline matters.
A hypothetical Indian news site gets 2 crore (20 million) display ad requests a month. Fill is 85% and eCPM is ₹40.
- Baseline revenue = 20,000,000 × 0.85 × ₹40 ÷ 1,000 = ₹6,80,000 a month, or ₹34.00 per thousand ad requests.
Suppose that after the AdX adapter joins Prebid and per-exchange floors are tuned, fill drops to 82% (higher floors) and eCPM rises to ₹43.
- New revenue = 20,000,000 × 0.82 × ₹43 ÷ 1,000 = ₹7,05,200, up ₹25,200 or about 3.7%, which is ₹35.26 per thousand ad requests.
Now suppose traffic fell 10% in the same month. Ad requests drop to 1.8 crore and revenue is 18,000,000 × 0.82 × ₹43 ÷ 1,000 = ₹6,34,680. That looks like a loss of ₹45,320 against baseline, even though revenue per thousand ad requests rose from ₹34.00 to ₹35.26. Tracking that figure by demand source separates yield from traffic.
Notes for India-based publishers
- Global scope, uncertain timing. The opinion says the judgment reaches globally, but Google's proposed text would allow up to 24 months after the effective date outside the United States.
- CCI timing. The CCI case is at the investigation stage. A later order could add India-specific obligations, but nothing published so far changes a 2027 setup.
For how Google's separate search case could affect traffic and ads, see our piece on the Google search antitrust appeal.
How eCorpIT can help
eCorpIT is a Gurugram-based technology organisation, founded in 2021, assessed at CMMI Level 5 and MSME certified, with senior-led engineering teams working across AWS, Microsoft and Google platforms. Our data and analytics services team can set up a warehouse for exported ad logs and build revenue dashboards that separate yield from traffic effects. Talk to us at /contact-us/.
Last updated: 7 November 2026.
