Google: Forced syndication would permanently expose its ad systems

Google is asking a federal judge to pause enforcement of DOJ antitrust remedies, arguing that mandatory search and ad syndication would expose its proprietary technology and harm advertisers.

The argument appears in a new affidavit from Jesse Adkins, Google’s director of product management for search and ads syndication, filed Jan. 16 as part of the company’s motion to stay Judge Amit Mehta’s Final Judgment while it appeals.

The big picture. Adkins’ affidavit focuses on damage that cannot be undone: exposure of proprietary ad technology, advertiser harm, and loss of control over query and pricing data.

• Mehta’s Final Judgment requires Google to license search results, features, and search text ads to any “Qualified Competitor” for five years, on terms “no worse than” existing deals.
• Google says enforcing these remedies before the appeal concludes would cause immediate and irreversible harm.

Risk to Google’s ad technology. At the core of Google’s warning is the risk of exposing its search ads auction, the product of decades of R&D by thousands of engineers.

• Adkins argues that large-scale syndication could let competitors or third parties reverse-engineer Google’s ad targeting, relevance signals, and auction mechanics.
• That data could then be used to train competing ad systems, Google says, undermining its competitive advantage.

Sub-syndication amplifies risk. The judgment allows competitors to re-distribute Google ads to third parties, creating multiple layers where scraping and misuse become harder to detect.

• Google said even compliant partners lack strong incentives to police downstream actors, effectively turning its ad system into a quasi-open utility with limited safeguards.

Advertisers could face fraud. Advertisers, according to Adkins, are caught in the crossfire. The affidavit details “trick-to-click” tactics and query manipulation designed to drive accidental clicks or inflate costs.

• One example describes a syndicator appending high-income country names to queries while routing low-cost foreign traffic to the ads, generating tens of millions of dollars in click fraud over just two months.
• Users may see less relevant ads, advertisers still pay, and conversion rates could collapse.

Pricing uncertainty. The Final Judgment also requires Google to offer syndication terms “no worse than” existing deals. Adkins notes that current arrangements are highly bespoke, reflecting partner traffic quality and technical setup.

• Applying these terms broadly could force below-market pricing and create financial uncertainty tied to unpredictable query volumes.

Irreversibility is key. Throughout the affidavit, Adkins emphasizes that the potential harm is irreversible. Once proprietary ad signals are exposed, they cannot be recovered.

• Once advertisers lose trust, it cannot be restored.
• Once competitors build products on Google’s systems, the market impact becomes permanent.
• Google argues that even a successful appeal would come too late to undo the damage.

Why we care. The court-ordered ad syndication could weaken Google’s control over ad placement and targeting, leading to less relevant ads and lower conversion rates. In short, the affidavit warns that the result would be increased costs, reduced ROI, and less predictable campaign performance.

What’s next. The court will decide whether to pause enforcement of the syndication remedies while Google appeals. If no stay is granted, Google will need to begin licensing search ads and results to qualified competitors under the new rules — reshaping the search advertising ecosystem in ways the company says could extend far beyond its own operations.

Dig deeper.  

• Affidavit of Jesse Adkins — Document #1471, Attachment #3
• Google outlines risks of exposing its search index, rankings, and live results
• Google can keep Chrome, but exclusive search deals must end

View the full article