Google: No Break Up Required… Because Google Is Just Special
September 14, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
On the flight back to my home from Washington, DC, I read “Google Won’t Have to Break Up Its Ad Tech Business, Judge Brinkema Rules.” Does this mean that Google is not a monopoly? Does this mean that Google is special? Does this mean that any company can adopt the business approach of Google? I thought about these questions as I waited for the lavish mid-flight snacks delivered by an empathetic, attentive flight attendant. “Attentive” and “attendant.” I get it, and those ersatz, chemical infused biscuits were absolutely delicious.
Back to the write up. I noted this passage:
Google had previously proposed a number of competitive fixes for its ads business. It promised to make real-time bid amounts for open web display ads sold through AdX available to rival ad servers. Google also said it will deprecate its Unified Pricing Rules and allow publishers to set different price floors for individual bidders in GAM. And it promised to not use “first look” and “last look” privileges to adjust its bids for open-web display ads, although, according to Google, it stopped doing so years ago.
I quite liked this statement: “it promised.” Promises in a legal matter are obviously acceptable. Imagine a criminal in the act, captured on video by several eye witnesses, and documented with a real time message posted on X.com. When that murderer says, “I promise. I won’t kill again,” do we believe this person?
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough.
The cited write up says:
During the trial’s remedy phase, she [the judge] pointed out that disrupting AdX or DFP might negatively impact the small publishers that currently use the latter for free. She added that any potential acquisition of AdX by another party (say, Microsoft, for example) could introduce new complications. She also suggested that requiring Google to implement behavioral fixes would be a quicker solution than mandating a breakup and enduring the yearslong appeals process that would come with it.
How does one interpret this possible ruling? Let me do a bit of airplane boredom imagining:
- No one cares to understand the business system Google has put in place for online advertising. Therefore, just allow Google to keep on doing Googley things. No change to the advertising factories Google operates.
- Google does a great job of explaining and reframing its business. Neither its attorneys, employees, the opposing attorneys, or most of the Google customers have any knowledge of Google’s business methods. Therefore, clear explanations are impossible. People just smile, nod, and use Google. Convenience wins.
- Advertisers just want to get leads and make sales. A bit of grumpiness is part of the ad game. Pay the bill and move on.
- Certain behaviors are now institutionalized. Period. Forget it.
Are these points valid? Of course not. I am delighted that American Airlines provides minimal customer care. Imagine eating something delicious and trying to think critically about Google promising to make changes. What’s worse? Airplane travel or the jumbled thinking of a legal proceeding related to the operation of a remarkable company.
I know my answer.
Stephen E Arnold, September 14, 2026
Comments
One Response to “Google: No Break Up Required… Because Google Is Just Special”
Got something to say?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
Awesome issues here. I amm veryy satisfiedd too ook your article.
Thank youu sso mufh annd I am tking a loook ahdad too contact you.
Willl youu pllease drpp mee a mail? xnxx