Google is asking a federal judge to pause the DOJ’s antitrust remedies, warning that forced search and ad syndication would expose its proprietary technology and hurt advertisers.
The argument appears in a new affidavit from Jesse Adkins, Google’s director of product management for search and ads syndication, filed Jan. 16 in support of the company’s motion to pause Judge Amit Mehta’s final judgment while it appeals.
The big picture. Adkins’ affidavit centers on damage that can’t be undone. It warns of forced exposure of proprietary ad technology, harm to advertisers, and loss of control over query and pricing data.
- Mehta’s final judgment would require Google to license its search results, features, and search text ads to any “qualified competitor” for five years, on terms no worse than its current deals.
- Google argues that enforcing these remedies before the appeal is resolved would trigger immediate and irreversible harm.
Risk to Google’s ad technology. At the core of Google’s warning is the risk of exposing its search ads auction, built through decades of research and development by thousands of engineers.
- Large-scale syndication would allow competitors or third parties to reverse-engineer Google’s ad targeting, relevance signals, and auction mechanics, Adkins argued.
- Data could then be used to train rival ad systems, eroding its competitive advantage, Google said.
Sub-syndication amplifies risk. The judgment allows competitors to redistribute Google ads to third parties, creating multiple layers where scraping and misuse are harder to detect.
- Even compliant partners would have little incentive to police downstream actors, effectively turning its ad system into a quasi-open utility with limited safeguards, Google said.
Advertisers could face fraud. Advertisers are caught in the crossfire, according to Adkins. The affidavit details “trick-to-click” tactics and query manipulation designed to drive accidental clicks or inflate costs.
- One example describes a syndicator appending high-income country names to queries while routing low-cost foreign traffic to the ads, generating tens of millions of dollars in click fraud over just two months.
- Users may see less relevant ads, advertisers still pay, and conversion rates could collapse.
Pricing uncertainty. The final judgment also requires Google to offer syndication terms “no worse than” existing deals. Those arrangements are highly bespoke, tailored to each partner’s traffic quality and technical setup, Adkins noted.
- Applying these terms broadly could force below-market pricing and create financial uncertainty tied to unpredictable query volumes.
Irreversibility is key. Throughout the affidavit, Adkins emphasizes that the potential harm is irreversible. Once proprietary ad signals are exposed, they can’t be recovered.
- Once advertisers lose trust, it cannot be restored.
- Once competitors build products on Google’s systems, the market impact becomes permanent.
- Google argues that even a successful appeal would come too late to undo the damage.
Why we care. Court-ordered ad syndication could weaken Google’s control over ad placement and targeting, leading to less relevant ads and lower conversion rates. In short, the affidavit warns of higher costs, lower ROI, and less predictable campaign performance.
What’s next. The court will decide whether to pause enforcement of the syndication remedies during Google’s appeal. Without a stay, Google would have to begin licensing search ads and results to qualified competitors under the new rules, reshaping the search advertising ecosystem in ways the company says would reach far beyond its own operations.
Dig deeper.