Episode Overview

Title: The Economist’s POV On Remedies For Google’s Ad Tech Monopoly
Podcast: AdExchanger Talks
Host: Allison Schiff
Guest: Jeff Mann, President and Founder, International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE)
Date: September 30, 2025

AdExchanger Talks dives deep with Jeff Mann, an economist and legal scholar, to explore the complex remedies phase of the ongoing Google ad tech antitrust trial. The episode focuses on the economics and practicality of different antitrust remedies, especially the likelihood and efficacy of forced divestiture, how antitrust markets are defined, and what healthy ad tech competition may look like.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Introduction to Jeff Mann and ICLE

• Background: Jeff clarifies he's a "lawyer by training, economist by inclination," with strong roots in academic and practical antitrust policy. ICLE bridges scholarship and real-world business/policy, focusing on antitrust, privacy, IP, telecom, and more.
  • “Law and economics is a sudden field in economics and it's pretty self descriptive. It's economics and law together…” (03:34)
  • ICLE runs on diverse, unrestricted funding, which Jeff argues preserves independence.
• Notable Moment: Jeff reveals he’s been to 85 Phish concerts.
• Funding Transparency: Addresses past Google funding:
  • “All of our support is general support with no strings attached...Our value is in our independence and the quality of our work.” (06:49)

2. The Google Ad Tech Antitrust Trial: Where Are We Now?

Timeline Recap & Key Issues

• Host Recap:
  • Trial found Google guilty of monopoly in publisher ad server and ad exchange markets.
  • The court is now deciding on remedies: DOJ wants a forced divestiture (“spin off the ad server and the ad exchange”); Google is offering some behavioral remedies. (08:28)
• Host’s Core Question:
  • “Do forced divestitures...work?...Or are they so messy, complex and unpredictable...that they're not necessarily worth it?” (10:27)

Structure vs. Conduct Remedies in Antitrust

• Jeff’s Response:
  • Explains divestiture is more common and workable in merger cases (e.g., grocery store mergers) than in conduct/monopolization cases.
    • “In the merger context, I think there's a pretty good...history of divestitures...But that's very different than in the...conduct context…” (10:27)
  • Most historic conduct case divestitures failed to spark real competition (Paramount movie theater cases, AT&T breakup).
  • “What might look good on paper...in practice may not be possible.” (14:11)
  • Lists risks: price rises, output drops, gold rushes of failed new entrants.

Notable Quote:

"Pretty much every antitrust divestiture of that sort that's been tried has been viewed as largely unsuccessful...Either it's had no appreciable effect on competition or it's been harmful."—Jeff (14:11)

3. What Does Healthy Competition in Ad Tech Look Like?

• Schiff & Mann Dialogue:

  • “I think part of the problem is that we don’t know.” — Jeff (17:34)

• Jeff argues these markets have large returns to scale and network effects that likely lead to dominance by a few large players, regardless of remedies:

  • “My suspicion is competition in this market would look a lot like what it looks like now, no matter what you do.” (18:03)
  • Structural remedies might just shift dominance with little change in consolidation.

• Behavioral Remedies:

  • Both agree some behavioral rules (e.g., interoperability, transparency about data/sharing, less lock-in between DFP and AdX) could help marginally but won’t revolutionize market structure.
    • “There's already some competition amongst the smaller players, but Google sucks a lot of the air out of the oxygen out of the room.” — Schiff (21:54)

4. The Challenge of Antitrust Remedies: Timing and Market Definition

• Delay and “Litigating the Past”:

  • Antitrust often trails market evolution. By the time remedies are set, the markets and technology may have shifted.
    • “You’re always litigating the past and it always takes a long time. And by the time you get around to remedies, things have changed.” — Jeff (24:59)

• Relevance to Future Markets (e.g., AI Search):

  • Can/should remedies in one market apply to new, related markets? Is it fair to block a company’s next move based on prior conduct?
    • “It’s a little bit like Minority Report… are you going to find, judge them to be behaving illegally before they even have the ability to behave illegally?” — Jeff (30:00)
  • Tim Wu’s “10 Years for Big Tech Monopolies” proposal discussed.

5. The Role and Pitfalls of Market Definition

• Host’s Analysis:

  • DOJ defined the market as "open web display advertising," a very specific slice. This won the case but may now limit the scope of remedies in the court phase.
    • “By narrowing the market so much, they were able to prove their case. But then…it makes it a little harder to justify these broad sweeping remedies that they’re looking for.” — Schiff (33:07)

• Jeff’s Response:

  • Artificiality in splitting buy/sell side tools can lead to a remedy mismatch.
    • “There’s something about what Google is talking about here that makes a lot of sense... the two sides are very importantly related. One side may be subsidizing the other side.” (36:33)

6. Judge Brinkema’s Approach: The Human Factor

• Host’s Impression:

  • “Judge Brinkema is great. She’s so sharp. I think she understands ad tech better than some actual practitioners…” (43:22)

• Jeff’s Praise:

  • Eastern District of Virginia is “rocket docket”—Brinkema embodies this with efficient, no-nonsense management.
    • “One of the best sort of simple, accessible summaries of how this (market) works.” (45:31)

• Discussion of how a judge’s style and willingness to cut rhetorical fluff may help or hurt parties in such cases.

• Jury vs. Judge: Both agree a jury trial would be nearly impossible for a case this complex.

  • “There’s no way a jury...would get it. Whatever knowledge you think judges lack, you know, juries have that in spades.” — Jeff (54:43)

• Notable Quote:

  "She wants those...publishers should get more revenue...in her mind and in...proper antitrust analysis that should happen at the expense of Google's take rate. It shouldn't really happen...by transferring wealth from advertisers." — Jeff (41:20)

7. The Dysfunctional Structure of Ad Tech

• Is ad tech purposely complicated?
  • Both agree the stack is overcomplicated, with too many intermediaries and hidden fees:
    • “There are so many middlemen and there are so many fees and hidden fees.” — Schiff (56:22)
    • “If you were designing it from scratch, would it look anything like what we have now?” — Jeff (57:04)
  • Discussion of whether personalization and targeting have lived up to industry hype.

8. Speculating on the Remedy: Predictions and Takeaways

• Will there be a forced divestiture?

  • Both believe it’s unlikely, even if more plausible here than in the search case:
    • “Structural remedies are really unsparmanded for reasons we talked about, they’re rarely successful. Google is absolutely right that the...effect...is decreasing competition in one of the markets.” — Jeff (63:07)
  • Most likely outcome: moderately enhanced behavioral remedies, going somewhat beyond Google’s proposals, but far short of divestiture.
    • “No scale off, conduct remedies that are...go beyond what Google’s asking for in a couple of ways, but are mostly reflective of that.” — Jeff (65:28)

• Notable Quote and Podcast Closure:

  "We'll have to do this again after that decision comes out." — Jeff (66:34)

Memorable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• On the difficulty of antitrust remedies:
  • “Pretty much every antitrust divestiture...has been viewed as largely unsuccessful.” — Jeff (14:11)
• On market definition's importance:
  • “Artificiality does miss something really important in this market...(buy and sell sides) are very importantly related.” — Jeff (36:33)
• On Judge Brinkema:
  • “She’s really ready to get to the meat...She’s so sharp, that...I’m not sure that curtailing rhetorical flourishes is going to deny her access to important information.” — Jeff (45:31)
• On ad tech complexity:
  • “It’s like a cludge. It’s like everything sort of kludged together how it’s evolved.” — Jeff (55:58)
• On the real-world results of targeting:
  • “We could all agree it’s better to target than not, but is it enough better that it’s worth what you’re sort of paying for?” — Jeff (58:35)
• On prediction:
  • “My bet's going to be no scale off of conduct remedies...but are mostly reflective of that.” — Jeff (65:28)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [03:34] – Jeff introduces ICLE, funding transparency
• [08:28] – Recap of antitrust trial: where we are, big stakes
• [10:27] – Forced divestitures in antitrust: theory and practice
• [17:34] – Defining “healthy competition” in ad tech
• [24:28] – Antitrust litigation “always litigating the past”
• [33:07] – Importance and risks of market definition
• [43:22] – Judge Brinkema’s approach and influence
• [56:22] – The byzantine complexity of ad tech
• [62:31] – Final predictions for the remedy phase

Summary Takeaway

This episode pulls back the curtain on both the economic and legal uncertainties at the heart of the Google ad tech trial’s remedy phase. Jeff Mann, with Allison Schiff’s probing guidance, demonstrates why structural remedies look appealing but rarely work—and how the very way markets are defined in court can shape, if not limit, real-world outcomes. They agree the most likely regulatory future for ad tech isn’t a historic breakup, but rather a set of behavioral rules designed to keep Google’s market dominance in check. The episode is a masterclass in the ambiguities—and limits—of antitrust law, especially in markets as complex and fast-evolving as digital advertising.