- On October 2, 2026, the parties filed one jointly proposed final judgment, 41 pages, with their competing wording shown wherever they disagree. [1][2]
- Deadlines count from an effective date 60 days after the court enters the judgment, paused during any stay. [1]
- AdX bidding into Prebid and into rival ad servers: the plaintiffs propose six months, Google 12. [1]
- Google proposes that timelines apply to the US, with other countries following within 24 months. The plaintiffs’ version has no such clause. [1]
- Each side wants to be the one that proposes the monitor candidates. [1]
- Agreed: a six-year term, DFP data export within three months, and Header Bidding Trafficking for every DFP publisher within six. [1]
- That feature is available only in Google Ad Manager 360 today. [3]
- The judge has set no date for resolving the disputes. [4]
When the court refused to break up Google’s ad tech business in September, it told the two sides to turn its opinion into one document. The order gave them 30 days and one rule for whatever they could not settle: include both versions, labeled, with no argument attached. [5]
They filed on October 2. [2] The result is 41 pages in which the agreed text runs as normal prose and every disagreement appears in brackets, the plaintiffs’ words next to Google’s. [1] It reads like a contract mid-negotiation, which is what it is. For anyone who sells or buys open-web display advertising, it is also the first document that puts dates on the remedies we described in our piece on the ruling.
The short version is that the two sides agree on what Google must build. They disagree on when, where, and who gets to check.
How the clock works
Nothing in the draft has a calendar date. Every deadline is a number of months from the “Effective Date,” defined as 60 days after the final judgment is entered. That date is paused, day for day, for as long as the judgment or a provision of it is stayed by this court or on appeal. [1] Google’s version adds that the judgment takes effect “subject to the outcome of any motion to stay this Final Judgment pending appeal.” [1]
So the real schedule is: the judge resolves the bracketed disputes, enters the judgment, 60 days pass, and then the months start counting, unless a stay stops them. AdExchanger notes there is no set timeline for the first step. [4]
Where the two versions differ
| Provision | Plaintiffs’ version | Google’s version |
|---|---|---|
| AdX adapter for Prebid | 6 months | 12 months |
| AdX responding to rival publisher ad servers | 6 months | 12 months |
| Publisher control over how a request reaches AdX | 6 months | 12 months |
| Equivalent information from AdX to all buying tools | 12 months | 18 months |
| Outside the United States | No separate schedule | US first, elsewhere within 24 months of the effective date |
| Who may export DFP data | A publisher “considering or evaluating” another ad server | A publisher that “chooses to use” one |
| Historical data | All bids, won or lost, whether or not previously available | Only data Google already makes available |
| Google Ads favoring AdX | Only on the advertiser’s express instruction, and verifiable | Allowed for advertiser return on investment |
| Monitor candidates | Proposed by the plaintiffs | Proposed by Google |
| Google’s duty to the monitor | “Cooperate fully,” with access in 14 days | “Take no action to interfere with or impede” |
Every row is from the draft itself. [1] Four of them deserve a closer look.
The timing gap matters more than six months suggests. Opening AdX bids to publishers outside Google’s ad server drew the most consistent high scores in Digiday’s survey of sell-side executives, because it lets a publisher leave without giving up Google’s demand. [6] Under the plaintiffs’ dates it arrives about eight months after entry of judgment. Under Google’s, about 14, before any stay.
The geography clause is new. Google’s text says its timelines were proposed “on the premise that the mandated relief would apply only to the United States,” and that each element will also be implemented elsewhere “by a time not to exceed 24 months after the Effective Date,” longer if local law requires. [1] On Google’s own dates, a publisher outside the US could get the Prebid adapter a year after a US publisher does.
The data dispute decides whether portability helps before a decision or only after it. A publisher weighing a move needs its data to evaluate the alternative. Google’s wording releases it once the publisher “chooses to use” another server. [1]
And the buy-side clause is where the conduct at the center of the case would be policed. Both versions bar Google Ads from prioritizing AdX because Google owns it. Google’s version permits prioritizing AdX, or publishers using DFP, for the purpose of advertiser return on investment, and lists reasons such as better information, lower latency, and fraud protection. The plaintiffs’ version requires the advertiser to have expressly instructed it and the justification to be “reasonable, supported, and verifiable.” [1]
What is not in dispute
The agreed text is longer than the disputed text, and some of it has had little attention.
- Within three months, Google must rescind any policy restricting publishers from passing an AdX real-time bid through another system, and must tell every publisher under contract that AdX does not require DFP. [1]
- Within three months, publishers can export their DFP configuration and historical data at no charge, and Google must publish documentation so other ad servers can import it. [1]
- Within six months, new and renewed agreements for DFP and AdX must be separate contracts. [1]
- Within 12 months, DFP must connect server to server with Prebid Server, and within 15, guaranteed and preferred deals must be able to run through that connection. [1]
- Within 12 months, Google must offer a data file showing, for each ad served, the candidate prices and adjustments behind the decision, with documentation that lets a publisher verify the winner. [1]
- First Look, Last Look, and Unified Pricing Rules may not return. Google Ads may not bid directly into DFP. [1]
One item on the agreed list changes something a publisher can see today. Google must make Header Bidding Trafficking available to all DFP publisher customers within six months and may not restrict it by a publisher’s size, usage, or subscription to Google Ad Manager 360. [1] Google’s help page for the feature currently opens with the words “Only available in Google Ad Manager 360.” [3] In Digiday’s survey it was the highest-scoring remedy, with a caveat from one consultant that letting Google handle your Prebid setup sits uneasily with the point of header bidding. [6]
The scope is narrow by design. The draft applies to open-web display advertising and says nothing in it applies to AdSense, AdMob, or DV360. Its definition excludes native ads, in-stream video, and ads in mobile apps and on connected televisions. [1]
The monitor is where the remedy succeeds or fails
A behavioral remedy is only as good as the person checking it, and this is the part of the draft with the most brackets.
Both sides accept a monitor serving for the life of the judgment, supported by a three-member technical committee. [1] They split on nearly everything else. Each proposes that it draw up the slate of three candidates from which the other picks. The plaintiffs want Google to hand over, within 14 days, “full and complete access to all personnel (current and former), agents, consultants, books, records, source code, and facilities.” They want the monitor able to compel written answers to questions. They want a missed monitor deadline to count as a violation of the judgment. Google omits those provisions or narrows them to “reasonable” access and assistance. [1]
One term in this section has been misread in coverage. “Malfeasance” appears in the plaintiffs’ text, defined as “conduct wholly outside the bounds of the law or reasonable disagreement.” It is not a threshold for Google’s behavior. It is the only ground on which Google could refuse to pay the monitor, and the plaintiffs’ version puts the burden on Google to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. [1] The clause exists to stop a monitored company from starving its monitor.
The plaintiffs also propose a closing section Google leaves out entirely: a right to seek contempt, reimbursement of enforcement costs, and four more years in which violations discovered after the judgment expires can still be pursued. Google’s note reads: “Google omits this section as unnecessary.” [1]
Even the question of who must read the judgment is contested. The plaintiffs’ version sends it to all officers and employees of Google. Google’s sends it to eight named roles, from the chief executive to the vice president for sell-side monetization. [1]
What to do with it
For publishers, three things are worth doing before the judge rules. Ask your account contact when Header Bidding Trafficking will be available to you, since that date is agreed. Decide now what DFP data you would want exported, because the plaintiffs’ version would let you ask while you are still evaluating. And price the migration honestly. As Mediavine’s chief executive told Digiday, the open question about portable data is where a publisher would take it. [6]
For buyers, the clause to watch is the one on Google Ads and AdX. If the plaintiffs’ wording survives, any preference for Google’s exchange in your campaigns becomes something you would have to instruct.
For everyone, the planning date is not in the document. It is the day the judge enters it, plus 60, plus the months in whichever column she picks.
Sources
- US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · [Proposed] Final Judgment, United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00108, Dkt. 1861-1Primary. Filed October 2, 2026; 41 pages. Via CourtListener.
- US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · Joint Notice of Parties’ Proposed Final Judgment, Dkt. 1861Primary. Filed October 2, 2026.
- Google Ad Manager Help · Header bidding trafficking with the Prebid wrapperPrimary. Read October 13, 2026.
- AdExchanger · Google And The DOJ Filed Their Proposed Final Judgments In The Ad Tech CaseTrade press, October 5, 2026.
- US District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · Order, United States v. Google LLC, Dkt. 1857Primary. Filed September 2, 2026.
- Digiday · Publishers’ scorecard on Google’s ad tech remedies: they’re progress, but far from a clean winTrade press, September 23, 2026. Scores from seven sell-side executives.
Frequently asked questions
What did Google and the Justice Department file?
On October 2, 2026, they filed one jointly proposed final judgment in the ad tech case, as the court’s order of September 2 required. It runs to 41 pages. Where the parties could not agree, each side’s wording appears in the text, labeled with its proponent. The order did not allow argument or explanation to be included.
When would the remedies start?
The draft defines the effective date as 60 days after the court enters the final judgment, with the clock paused for as long as the judgment is stayed. Every deadline in it counts from that date. The court has not said when it will enter the judgment.
How soon would AdX bid into Prebid?
That is disputed. The plaintiffs propose that Google build the adapter within six months of the effective date. Google proposes 12 months. The same six against 12 split applies to letting AdX respond to rival publisher ad servers and to a control that lets a publisher choose how a bid request reaches AdX.
Would the judgment apply outside the United States?
Both versions reach beyond the US, on different schedules. Google’s text says the stated timelines apply to the United States and that each element will also be implemented elsewhere within 24 months of the effective date, extendable where local law requires. The plaintiffs’ version has no separate schedule.
What do publishers get that is not disputed?
Among the agreed provisions: a server-to-server integration between DFP and Prebid Server within 12 months, export of DFP configuration and historical data within three months, an auction data file and documentation of DFP’s final logic within 12 months, separate contracts for DFP and AdX, the end of Unified Pricing Rules, and Header Bidding Trafficking for every DFP publisher within six months.
What is the fight over the monitor about?
Who chooses and how much the monitor can demand. Each side proposes that it draw up the slate of three candidates. The plaintiffs want Google to cooperate fully and provide access to personnel, records, and source code within 14 days, and want the monitor able to compel written answers. Google’s text says it must take no action to interfere and must provide reasonable assistance.
Does the judgment cover apps, video, or connected TV?
No. The draft applies to open-web display advertising, which it defines to exclude native ads, in-stream video, and ads in mobile apps, on social platforms, in video streaming services, and on connected televisions. It also says nothing in it applies to AdSense, AdMob, or DV360.
Mikołaj Salecki
Writes about media, tech, and AI business for people who actually run digital. Former agency lead. Skeptic of frameworks that read better than they perform.
