The story. Google and the Department of Justice filed competing proposed final judgments in the ad tech case on Friday night, a 41-page document with each side’s preferred language in brackets. The core remedies are agreed. Timing, international scope, publisher data access and the compliance monitor are not. (AdExchanger, Google And The DOJ Filed Their Proposed Final Judgments In The Ad Tech Case, 5 October 2026)
01What happened
- The filing. It came in at 10:15 p.m. on Friday, after Judge Brinkema’s proposed remedies were unsealed on 16 September. Judge Leonie Brinkema now has to referee the open points before she can sign an enforceable order.
- The clock. There is no set timeline for her to sign. Once she does, a 60-day period starts before anything takes effect, and AdExchanger expects Google to appeal.
- What both sides accept. Google must build a connection between AdX and Prebid. AdX must also take bid requests from non-Google publisher ad servers on the same terms it gives DFP.
- More bans and a split. Unified pricing rules join first look and last look on the list of banned auction tactics, and Google Ads can no longer bid directly into DFP. DFP and AdX become separate contracts.
- Data export. Publishers get to export DFP configuration data and historical bid data within three months of the order taking effect.
- Timing, disputed. The DOJ wants AdX connected to Prebid within six months. Google wants twelve, and asks for the same longer window for rival ad server integrations.
- Scope, disputed. Google wants up to 24 additional months to implement the remedies internationally. The DOJ wants them global from Day One.
- Data access, disputed. The DOJ would let a publisher request DFP data while “considering or evaluating” a non-Google ad server. Google would release it only once the publisher has decided to switch.
- The monitor. Both sides accept a six-year monitoring period. They differ on who nominates the monitor and on how far the monitor’s access reaches.
- Contempt trigger. The DOJ wants a defined standard for “malfeasance”. Google’s version reads “[Google omits this subsection]”.
02What it means inside a GAM network
Nothing in this filing changes a setting in your account today. The earliest any of it can reach you is the day the order is signed plus 60 days, and no signing date exists. Then the DOJ-versus-Google gap decides whether the AdX and Prebid connection arrives six months later or twelve.
The data point is the one an ad-ops team can use. Whether you can ask for your DFP configuration and bid history while you are still evaluating an alternative, or only after you commit, shapes how you can test a second ad server. We read that as a negotiating position, since the filing text is the evidence and the final wording is not settled.
The unified pricing rules line deserves care. AdExchanger describes the ban as preventing different price floors for different buyers. How that maps onto the floor setup in your own GAM network depends on the final order language, so do not change floors on the strength of a draft.
The two sides agree on what Google has to build and disagree on when, where and under whose watch.
03What publishers should do about it
04The bottom line
The two sides agree on what Google has to build and disagree on when, where and under whose watch. For a publisher, the useful number is the 6-versus-12-month gap, because the final order will land somewhere inside it or beyond it. Prepare your records now and wait for the signature before you spend engineering time.