In a stunning plot twist that absolutely no one at the Department of Justice saw coming, forcing Google to sell parts of its monopolistic ad technology business might accidentally create an opportunity for – gasp – Chinese buyers. As of Tuesday, federal antitrust enforcers have officially requested that Google divest its AdX exchange and publisher ad server businesses after a judge found the company illegally monopolized these markets. This creates the perfect storm of regulatory confusion: how do you break up an American monopoly without letting a Chinese company swoop in and buy the pieces?
The DOJ’s 17-page filing argues that Google should immediately sell its advertising exchange (AdX) and publisher ad server (DFP), two critical components of the ecosystem that match publishers who need ad revenue with advertisers who need eyeballs. The filing contains zero mentions of acceptable buyer nationalities, a stunning oversight that government officials are now frantically attempting to address via anonymous quotes to media outlets.
Operation Break-Up Google (But Only To US Companies On Our Christmas Card List)
The Justice Department’s request comes as part of a broader effort to dismantle Google piece by piece, with separate attempts to force the company to divest its Chrome browser in another monopolization case. If successful, these actions would represent the most significant corporate breakup since AT&T was split into the “Baby Bells” in 1984 – a comparison that becomes less flattering when you realize most of those Baby Bells eventually merged back together like a regulatory T-1000.
An unnamed Justice Department official, speaking on the condition that we describe them as “tall and ruggedly handsome,” explained the predicament: “We want to create more competition in digital advertising, but only the right kind of competition. American competition. Preferably from companies that don’t already have too much market power but somehow still have billions of dollars to spend on acquisitions. Does that exist? Probably not, but we’re required by law to pretend it does.”
The filing’s request that Google “immediately” sell AdX raises the delightful question of who exactly could afford to purchase and operate complex ad technology infrastructure worth billions of dollars. The list of potential buyers with both the technical expertise and financial resources is remarkably short and features names like Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple – companies that definitely wouldn’t create any new antitrust concerns whatsoever.
The TikTok Paradox: National Security Edition
The Google divestiture demand creates an uncomfortable parallel with the ongoing TikTok saga, where the government has demanded ByteDance sell the app to non-Chinese owners or face a ban. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this law in January, citing national security concerns about TikTok’s ties to China. Despite multiple deadline extensions from the Trump administration, ByteDance has steadfastly refused to sell, creating a slow-motion game of regulatory chicken.
This puts the US government in the awkward position of demanding one tech giant (Google) sell its assets while simultaneously preventing another tech giant (ByteDance) from keeping its assets. The cognitive dissonance has created what economists call a “selective capitalism paradox,” where free markets are enthusiastically supported except when they’re not.
“It’s actually very consistent,” explained a Commerce Department official who requested anonymity because they “aren’t supposed to be talking about this stuff while drinking.” “When American companies monopolize markets, it’s a threat to competition. When Chinese companies buy American assets, it’s a threat to national security. When American companies monopolize markets AND threaten national security, we give them defense contracts.”
The Reverse Gold Rush: Chinese Companies Already Eyeing Ad Tech
What makes the situation particularly delicious is that Chinese companies have been actively acquiring US ad tech firms for years. As reported way back in 2023, Beijing-based Spearhead Integrated Marketing Communication Group acquired mobile ad exchange Smaato for $148 million, and Chinese mobile ad platform Mobvista purchased app monetization firm NativeX for around $25 million.
According to industry experts, Chinese tech companies view US ad tech as “undervalued” specifically because “it’s hard for them to exit” – a prophetic observation given Google’s current predicament. Victor Wong, CEO of programmatic creative platform Thunder, explained in 2023 that “American ad technology is a generation ahead of Asian ad tech,” making it an attractive acquisition target.
Now, with the DOJ essentially putting Google’s ad tech on the government – mandated yard sale table, Chinese interest could intensify dramatically. This possibility has reportedly sent DOJ officials scrambling to draft what insiders describe as a “No, not like that” addendum to their divestiture demand.
The Great Google Ad Tech Auction (Terms And Conditions Apply)
Sources close to the situation report that the Justice Department is drafting emergency guidelines for acceptable AdX and DFP buyers that would disqualify companies based on a complex matrix of factors including “national origin,” “existing market share,” and “whether they’ve ever said anything nice about China on LinkedIn.”
The guidelines would effectively eliminate:
- Chinese companies (national security concerns)
- Big tech companies (antitrust concerns)
- Medium tech companies (future antitrust concerns)
- Small tech companies (insufficient resources concerns)
- Private equity firms (moral concerns)
This leaves approximately three potential buyers: a mid-sized adtech firm in Timbuktu with excellent political connections, Elon Musk if he’s in a good mood that day, and the government of Canada, which has been quietly shopping for a side hustle to stop Donald Trump turning them into a 51st state of the US.
Trump’s Tariff Tangle: How 54% Changed Everything
The Google situation becomes even more convoluted when viewed through the lens of the ongoing TikTok negotiation. Sources report that a promising plan to restructure TikTok’s US ownership – reducing Chinese ownership below the 20% threshold required by law-has stalled completely after Trump announced 54% cumulative tariffs on Chinese imports.
“Maybe I’ll give them a little reduction in tariffs or something to get it done. TikTok is big, but every point in tariffs is worth more than TikTok,” Trump said in March, demonstrating his signature negotiating technique of publicly undermining his own leverage.
Beijing has reportedly refused to approve any TikTok deal as long as the tariffs remain in place, creating a perfect stalemate. This raises the tantalizing question: would China block its companies from bidding on Google’s ad tech out of similar retaliatory principles? Or would they enthusiastically encourage such bids precisely to highlight the contradiction in US policy?
The Unasked Question: Does Anybody Actually Want This Stuff?
Lost in the geopolitical chaos is a more fundamental question: is Google’s ad tech even worth buying if forcibly separated from Google’s ecosystem? Google’s own filing argues that divestiture of AdX and DFP “wouldn’t be technically feasible” because neither piece of technology is capable of working outside of Google’s proprietary infrastructure.
“Divestiture is not as simple as selling either the AdX or DFP source code to a willing buyer,” Google wrote, making the compelling point that complex technology integrated into a larger ecosystem might not function as a standalone product.
This creates the delicious possibility that after years of litigation, billions in legal fees, and endless regulatory drama, Google might be forced to sell products that nobody wants to buy – the corporate equivalent of your parents forcing you to sell the baseball cards you ruined by attaching them to your bicycle spokes.
State AGs Enter The Chat: Because This Wasn’t Complicated Enough
As if the situation needed additional parties, multiple Republican attorneys general have launched a probe into Google and Apple regarding their hosting of TikTok and other Chinese-owned apps on their app stores. The investigation focuses on whether these practices violate state consumer protection laws and federal law.
This creates the perfect regulatory pretzel: Google is simultaneously being investigated for potentially helping Chinese apps reach American consumers AND being forced to sell assets that Chinese companies might want to buy. Apple gets to participate in the fun by being investigated for hosting TikTok while also being one of the few companies with enough cash to potentially buy Google’s ad tech – a purchase that would trigger yet another antitrust investigation.
The circle of regulatory life continues.
What Happens Next: A Cleromancy Guide
As the forced divestiture process for Google’s ad tech unfolds alongside the TikTok saga, several outcomes are possible, each more absurd than the last:
- Google successfully argues that its ad tech cannot be separated from its ecosystem, transforming years of antitrust litigation into a technical discussion about API dependencies and database architecture.
- The DOJ publishes buyer requirements so specific that only one pre-selected American company qualifies, creating what antitrust experts call a “government-mandated monopoly transfer.”
- A Chinese consortium attempts to purchase AdX, triggering an immediate national security review, seventeen congressional hearings, and at least one executive order banning “advertising-related transactions with foreign adversaries.”
- Google sells its ad tech to an American company, which immediately outsources all development and operations to China anyway.
- The entire process drags on so long that by the time a sale is approved, the technology is obsolete and worth a fraction of its current value.
The most likely outcome, according to sources who spoke on condition that we describe them as “wise beyond their years,” is that Google will propose behavioral remedies instead of divestiture – essentially promising to be nicer to competitors while maintaining ownership of its ad tech. The DOJ will reject this proposal, courts will become involved, and the matter will be resolved sometime around the heat death of the universe.
Meanwhile, TikTok will continue operating under a series of deadline extensions, creating a permanent state of regulatory limbo that satisfies absolutely no one.
The Silicon Valley Takeaway: Build Monopolies, Just Not Too Obviously
For tech executives watching this saga unfold, the lesson is clear: building a monopoly remains extremely profitable, even if you eventually face antitrust action. Google’s ad tech businesses generated a significant portion of its $265 billion in revenue and even if forced to sell these assets, the company will have enjoyed decades of monopoly profits.
The secondary lesson: if you’re going to build a monopoly, be American. As one venture capitalist put it: “The government might eventually force you to sell your monopoly, but at least they’ll let you keep the money. For foreign companies, they’ll just ban you outright.”
And so the great tech regulation paradox continues: monopolies are bad, unless they’re our monopolies. Foreign ownership is dangerous, unless it’s in sectors nobody cares about. And breaking up big tech is essential, unless it creates opportunities for the wrong kind of competition.
Do you think the US government will actually force Google to sell its ad tech? If so, who do you think should be allowed to buy it? Should Chinese companies have the right to bid on US tech assets, or is the TikTok precedent appropriate? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and remember, your opinion definitely isn’t being analyzed by multiple recommendation algorithms right now.
If you enjoyed this revealing look at the hypocrisy of tech regulation, consider supporting TechOnion with a donation. For just 0.000001% of the annual revenue Google generates from its advertising monopoly, you can help us continue explaining why these forced divestitures are both absolutely necessary and hilariously unworkable. Your contribution is tax-deductible in exactly zero jurisdictions.
