Google Suggests Changes to EU Adtech Rules, Avoiding Divestment

We’re now at a pivotal moment in the world of online advertising. Recently, Google offered to implement major changes to its ad‑technology tools in order to satisfy the European Commission’s antitrust concerns, all without selling off any part of its business. For years, Google has been a dominant player in many parts of the ad‑tech market, from ad‑servers to ad‑exchanges. In September 2025, the European Commission fined Google €2.95 billion for abusing that dominance. Now, Google says it will open up more of its systems. It will allow publishers and advertisers greater choice. It wants to show it can reform without being broken apart. We’ll explore what’s changed, why it matters, and how all of this may shape the future of digital advertising in Europe and beyond.

Background: EU Adtech Regulations

The European Union has been increasingly active in regulating “gatekeeper” tech firms. The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and other competition rules aim to prevent large platforms from abusing their power.  In the ad‑tech space, the EU began investigating Google in 2021 for alleged anti‑competitive practices in its display advertising business.
Key issues include:

• Google controls both the tools publishers use to sell ads (supply side) and the tools advertisers use to buy ads (demand side).
• Google’s ad exchange, AdX, is allegedly being preferred in auctions, limiting rivals’ access.
• The lack of full transparency and the conflict of interest when one firm controls many steps in the value chain.

In September 2025, the Commission found Google had distorted competition in the ad‑tech market and imposed a €2.95 billion fine. The background shows that regulators are serious. They signalled that structural remedies (like divestment) might be needed if behavioural fixes are insufficient.

Google’s Proposed Changes

In response, Google submitted a plan to the European Commission to comply with regulations without splitting or selling major parts of its ad‑tech operations.

Some specific changes Google proposed include:

• More flexibility for publishers: allowing different minimum prices for different bidders when using Google Ad Manager.
• Improved interoperability: enabling advertisers and publishers to use a wider range of tools, reducing lock-in.
• Changes to auction and bidding structure: easing rules that previously gave Google’s AdX exchange an advantage, reducing conflicts of interest.

In short, Google is focusing on reforming its systems rather than a full divestment, aiming to meet EU requirements while keeping its ad‑tech business intact.

Implications for the Adtech Market

We now look at how this may affect various stakeholders.

For publishers and advertisers in Europe, they may gain more freedom and transparency. If Google delivers on interoperability, publishers could choose non‑Google tools more easily. That may reduce fees or open up competition.

For competitors and smaller ad‑tech firms: These companies may see an opportunity to gain ground if Google’s dominance is eased. But they may still face high barriers. Google still retains its infrastructure and ecosystem.

For Google itself: While it avoids divestment, Google will need to implement changes fast and prove they work. If it fails, regulators may still demand structural remedies.

Short‑term vs long‑term effects: In the short term, we might see modest shifts in how auctions are run, and maybe minor cost adjustments for advertisers. In the long term, if the remedies work, we could see a more level playing field and greater innovation in ad‑tech. On the flip side, if Google maintains dominance despite the changes, the status quo remains.

In essence: The market is on notice. Reforms are being offered. But whether they lead to meaningful change remains to be seen.

Regulatory and Legal Perspective

From a regulator’s perspective, Google’s proposed changes are a positive step, but they may not be enough. The European Commission has said that behavioural remedies (i.e., changes to behaviour) sometimes fall short and structural remedies (like divestments) are necessary in complex digital ecosystems. The EU has given Google until November (or another set deadline) to implement fixes. If Google does not comply effectively, the Commission could still impose a break‑up order. We should also note that in the U.S., the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken action against Google’s ad‑tech business, with courts finding Google illegally held monopolies in some online ad‑tech markets. What this means: there is global pressure on Google. The EU may coordinate with U.S. regulators. But Google wants to avoid being forced to break up its business.

Thus, the regulatory story is still unfolding. If Google’s fixes work, it may set a precedent. If not, structural remedies may follow.

Conclusion

In summary, Google’s strategy is clear: comply without divesting. By offering changes in how its ad‑tech business works, Google hopes to satisfy the EU while preserving its core operations.
For the broader ad‑tech world, this is an important moment. The balance between regulation, competition, and innovation is being tested. What comes next? We’ll watch how Google implements the changes. We’ll see if other ad‑tech players take advantage. And we’ll track whether regulators accept the fixes or demand more. In the end, the European digital advertising market may look different in a few years. For now, though, we’re in a phase of transition, and Google is at the centre of it.

FAQS

Disclaimer:

The content shared by Meyka AI PTY LTD is solely for research and informational purposes. Meyka is not a financial advisory service, and the information provided should not be considered investment or trading advice.