Google’s antitrust woes may spark change, but the ad tech revolution won’t happen overnight

Google’s ad tech empire is under siege. The DOJ is challenging its core, and the industry is asking: Is this the reckoning—or just another tremor? For now, seasoned insiders aren’t betting on a revolution.Robert Burkhart, Founder and President of ad tech consultancy Whozinzahs Holdings, has watched the cycles play out. Though he’s not sold on swift change, he does see where real cracks might finally form.Breakups are hard:“We’re back to Wanamaker’s old problem about wasting half your ad spend—except now we know which half,” says Burkhart. “Up to 40% goes to the platforms brokering the deal, often for conversion rates that don’t justify the cost.” The lawsuit’s impact is already taking shape. A judge has upheld three of four claims against Google, suggesting a likely Sherman Act violation. Remedies are next. “The plaintiffs want damages and a breakup. Specifically, Google’s Ad Exchange and DFP,” Burkhart explains.Even so, he doubts it’ll shake the market overnight. “It changes who gets the money, not the demand or supply.” Divestitures may bring pricing shifts or minor friction, but he doesn’t expect major disruption. “Ironically, monopolistic infrastructure between buy and sell sides makes everything run smoothly. Once you split it up, things can break.”Optics matter: “In my opinion, the more they can separate from Google right now, the better, long-term,” says Burkhart. Breaking up its dominance could pave the way for a healthier, more competitive market. Google’s grip spans the full stack—from browser to ad servers on both the buy and sell sides. “Controlling that many pieces of a transaction across both parties, let’s just say the optics aren’t good,” he notes. “Even if they’re not doing anything wrong, they easily could be.” A breakup wouldn’t be seamless, but it might be more fair.The 40% sting: Google’s market power always circles back to cost—and it’s not pretty. “There’s on-the-record testimony that $20 to $40 of every $100 goes to the platforms facilitating the transaction,” Burkhart says, citing the trial memo. As a media buyer, that figure hits hard. “I’ve got 40% overhead to buy digitally,” he says. If the conversion rates are hovering around 1–2%, the math doesn’t work. “There’s so much cost in digital with conversion rates that don’t justify it.”Burn it down? Calls for a new ad infrastructure are growing, but mostly in whispers. “I could see the industry waking up and choosing a different path,” says Burkhart, “but I’m not hearing anyone seriously propose a counter plan.” From his view, change this big takes years just to be taken seriously. He’s also quick to note how Google got here. “One of their biggest sins is they met a real need, and they did it well,” he says. Trouble started with header bidding. “They countered it with a proprietary workaround, effectively creating no way to go around them,” Burkhart explains.Change TBD: “Change doesn’t happen quickly or dramatically. It just never has,” says Burkhart, reflecting on a career shaped by slow-motion shifts. Even the analog-to-digital leap took 15 years to fully land. So while the Google case may shake headlines, it’s unlikely to rewrite ad tech overnight.Still, he sees a better path ahead. With most media now effectively digital—from CTV to streaming—Burkhart imagines a more open, opt-in exchange built on industry standards. Core functions like ad serving and bid exchange, he argues, should be standardized to invite more players in and keep markets from sealing shut. “That’s the way we should do it,” he says. “Whether we actually will is yet to be seen.”