AdExchanger Talks: “The Legal Analyst In Google's Corner”
Date: November 4, 2025
Host: James Hercher (filling in for Allison Schiff)
Guest: Vidushi Dayal, Director of Legal Analysis, Chamber of Progress

Episode Overview

In this episode of AdExchanger Talks, host James Hercher sits down with Vidushi Dayal, Director of Legal Analysis at Chamber of Progress—a tech trade association known for its advocacy in technology policy. The conversation centers on the ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust cases against Google, particularly in the ad tech and search markets. With Vidushi's legal background and her on-the-ground experience attending the Google ad tech trial, the discussion explores the complexities of courtroom antitrust battles, the learning curve for non-ad tech insiders, the significance of public access in major tech litigation, and the broader implications for the future of antitrust enforcement in the technology sector.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Vidushi Dayal’s Role and Perspective

• Vidushi introduces herself as Director of Legal Analysis at Chamber of Progress.
• The Chamber tracks and advocates across tech law issues, focusing primarily on antitrust and competition.
• She details her experience attending and live-tweeting the entirety of the recent Google ad tech trial.
• Notably, her background is in legal analysis rather than ad tech—giving her a unique, outsider’s perspective.
  • "[Ad tech] is quite daunting for those who aren’t in the trenches." (Vidushi Dayal, 01:18)
• The complexities of ad tech became apparent during the trials, highlighted by infamously convoluted diagrams like the “ad tech spaghetti football.”
  • “This image... went pseudo-viral, because it was just the most complex diagram of pipes and all of these tools and how they interplay.” (Vidushi, 04:52)

2. Navigating the Legal and Ad Tech Learning Curve

• Both host and guest agree that the legal and ad tech overlap is challenging and often poorly communicated in court.
• Judge Brinkema (presiding over the ad tech case) is commended for her sharp, incisive questions that clarify complex matters for non-experts.
  • "She’s just like a badass... whip smart." (James, 03:51)
• Vidushi notes court explanations felt “simpler” because the audience consisted of lawyers and a non-industry judge.

3. Comparing the Google Ad Tech and Search Antitrust Cases

• The episode explores parallels and distinctions between the DOJ’s cases targeting different Google business segments.
• The host and guest review the cautious judicial approaches, particularly those of Judge Mehta in the search case and how that might influence the outcome for the ad tech remedy phase.
  • "I think he started to show his hand... he was expressing a very healthy amount of skepticism of what the DOJ had brought to the table, which was a lot." (Vidushi, 08:24)
  • The DOJ is seen as “biting off more than they could chew.”
• The panel notes the distinct scope and scale of the markets: search affects billions, while the open web display adtech market is much more niche.
  • “The search market is so much more important... [while] the publisher ad tech market... is a pretty small market and... what happens here doesn’t matter to them [consumers].” (James, 14:01)

4. Live Reporting and the Importance of Public Access

• Vidushi emphasizes the crucial role of live reporting, considering the scarcity of public access to trial proceedings.
• The conversation reminisces about the arcane process of relaying verdicts (e.g., waving flags at Supreme Court steps) and reflects on how much context is missed without in-court reporting.
  • "Coverage... doesn’t get captured very well... sometimes there’s a real... judges will be like joking... how much more you get out of it. It does make such a big difference to be there." (James, 21:33)
• Courtroom restrictions (no water bottles, gum, phones) and Judge Brinkema’s strict control are highlighted.
  • “You can’t chew gum... it’s really strict in there.” (Vidushi, 23:53)

5. Remedies Phase: What Comes Next?

• Antitrust cases are split into “liability” and “remedies,” with public and industry attention dropping off sharply in the latter.
  • Remedies phase is where the government and defense negotiate specific changes, potentially including breakups or data-sharing mandates.
• Remedies from other tech cases, such as Epic v. Apple/Google, sometimes have swift real-world impacts (e.g., reduced app store fees, new app sign-up flows).
  • “Remedies have played out too... as a result of that case... apps can send people to sites to sign up elsewhere and... like new flows.” (James, 17:28)
• The Google ad tech case is now in its remedy phase, with debate centering around whether any form of divestiture (e.g., selling off DoubleClick or AdX) is practical or likely.
  • The case is marked by diverging testimony, especially among DOJ witnesses about what constitutes a feasible, effective remedy.
  • "Some say that AdX and DFP both needed to be divested, some saying it needed to be one or the other... some saying actually none could be divested." (Vidushi, 25:49)

6. Industry and Legal Theatrics: Different “Sides” in Court

• James prompts Vidushi to reflect on whether it feels like she’s “representing the Empire” (Google, Apple) vs. the “rebels” (publishers, app developers) in these industry battles.
  • Vidushi clarifies her role as an analyst, not a corporate representative, but acknowledges the natural sympathies in press and public often align with Google’s rivals.
• Broader context: These cases test new ground for antitrust law, which has traditionally targeted slower-moving, legacy industries.
  • “It’s interesting to me to see how these cases are being used as vehicles for some more novel antitrust enforcement, like breakups being a big one… these test cases are guinea pigs for these theories.” (Vidushi, 28:34)

7. Who Could Acquire Google’s Ad Tech Assets (If Told to Divest)?

• If a breakup were to occur, actual buyers would likely require significant private equity backing.
  • Concerns were raised in court about the influence and appropriateness of private equity entering ad tech.
• Disagreements among witnesses muddied the feasibility argument for a clean divestiture versus a behavioral remedy.
• The prevailing view: Judge Brinkema is unlikely to order a breakup/divestiture, favoring a robust behavioral remedy instead.
  • “I think at the end of it, I don’t think she is going to go for divestiture... would probably just try to do an airtight behavioral package instead.” (Vidushi, 33:47)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Ad tech is extremely daunting. Last time during the liability trial, I feel like this image of what was called the ad tech spaghetti football went pseudo-viral... It was just the most complex diagram of pipes and all of these tools and how they interplay with each other.”
  – Vidushi Dayal, 04:52
• "You can’t chew gum actually either... It’s really strict in there."
  – Vidushi Dayal, 23:53
• “Remedies is kind of phase two before appeals kicks off... all of these things are going to be appealed.”
  – Vidushi Dayal, 11:39
• “It almost was like, you know, it’s the advantage of like, why is the… Mafia family so hard to take down? Because they toe the line. Every Google witness towed the right line.”
  – James Hercher, 30:09
• “I feel like there was a lot of infighting over the role of private equity... private equity is buying up dentists and now ad tech is next.”
  – Vidushi Dayal, 32:05
• “I think what the DOJ did better in this case than in the search case was feasibility of divestiture... in this case there were all these project names that came up that discussed some sort of business type of divestiture.”
  – Vidushi Dayal, 30:49

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:36–02:38: Introduction of Vidushi Dayal and her background at Chamber of Progress
• 03:24–05:46: Learning curve for legal experts entering ad tech
• 08:03–11:39: Perspectives on the Google Search antitrust trial, judicial skepticism, and remedy phase expectations
• 14:01–15:52: Market size differences between search and ad tech; implications for remedies
• 17:28–18:08: Effects of earlier tech antitrust remedies on real-world app marketplaces
• 19:34–22:08: The value of in-person trial reporting and courtroom drama
• 23:53: Strictness of Judge Brinkema’s courtroom
• 25:49–28:34: Discussions around sides in the courtroom and how these cases push the boundaries of antitrust law
• 32:37–33:47: Feasibility of divestitures, role of private equity, and likely outcome: behavioral remedies
• 35:06–35:41: Wrap-up and preview of next court developments

Tone & Takeaways

The discussion is accessible yet detailed, full of industry in-jokes, courtroom war stories, and honest takes on the messy intersection of law, technology, and antitrust. Both speakers approach the subject with a mix of respect for the complexity, mild humor about legal circus, and genuine curiosity about how these “guinea pig” cases will shape the tech industry’s future regulatory landscape.

Bottom line:
If you want to understand how the DOJ’s antitrust push against Google is evolving—and why the outcome could set precedent for the entire tech sector—this episode is a must-listen, with frank insights from someone who’s been in the courtroom every day.