[9] Jonathan Kanter, the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, likened Google's dominance in the adtech market to a situation in which Goldman Sachs or Citibank owned the New York Stock Exchange.

The DOJ is also contemplating enforcing measures that would prevent Google from maintaining exclusive contracts and might require the company to divest certain assets or share its data with competitors, particularly in the online search and advertising sectors.

[15] The ruling against Google is seen as a significant win for antitrust enforcement in the U.S., setting a precedent for how the government might tackle monopolistic practices in the tech industry.

[21] Brinkema denied Google's effort to force Kanter's recusal in September 2023, describing the company's bias claims as "essentially a red herring defense".

[27] The lawsuit was filed in conjunction with the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia on January 24, 2023.

[8] On April 18, 2023, nine additional states joined the lawsuit, bringing the total to eighteen: Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Washington, and West Virginia.

[30] In opening arguments, lead DOJ attorney Julia Tarver Wood said that Google had used its acquisitions of ad software companies like DoubleClick and AdMeld to shore up an 87% market share in the ad-selling industry, stifling competition and hurting both consumers and publishers in the process.

[43] These measures, witnesses testified, involved unified pricing rules and header bidding, a term for the process in which publishers skirted around Google's ad exchange auctions.

[44] Trial testimony and documents showed that for years, Google had given its ad exchange, AdX, preferential treatment when it came to matching a publisher's proposed floor price.

"[46] As Mohan testified, prosecutors presented documents that illustrated how Google acquired rival companies, "parked" them away, and monopolized the market to push out competition.

[47] Prosecutors also similarly called former Google executives Jonathan Bellack and Nirmal Jayaram to the stand, who both sought to disavow and contradict emails they wrote in the past.

[53] Google executives testified that the company had helped consumers and competitors alike by attempting to fight off ad fraud and spam through the spending of millions of dollars.

[61] Google denied the DOJ's allegations, with a company spokesperson accusing the department of trying to unfairly "pick winners and losers in the highly competitive advertising technology sector.

"[62] The Chamber of Progress, a tech industry trade group whose membership includes Google, argued that the lawsuit is misguided amid a declining advertising market.

[63] Commentators have argued that the basis of the DOJ's case is rooted in a relatively "traditional" interpretation of antitrust law, as opposed to more "novel" theories of anti-competitive harms associated with the New Brandeis movement.

[65] William Kovacic, a former Republican member of the FTC, has argued that the suit is a serious one that "adds another important complication to Google's efforts to deal with regulators worldwide.

A January 2023 article in Bloomberg News suggested that the "surprising request" was made due to DOJ concerns about a hostile judicial environment.

[17] According to Harry First of the New York University School of Law, the DOJ's effort to "seek damages and demand a jury trial in a monopolization case is unprecedented".

[25][70] The aforementioned lawsuit, led by the Texas Attorney General's office, accuses Google of unlawfully abusing its dominance in digital advertising.