Publisher executives have issued a blunt report card on the remedies designed to curb Google’s ad tech power: an average score of 5 out of 10. The assessment, based on ratings from seven senior publisher revenue and sell-side ad tech executives, sees genuine progress in a few areas—but not a clean win.
The scorecard at a glance
Digiday asked the executives to score each remedy from 1, meaning largely symbolic, to 10, meaning it materially changes how publishers compete and make money. These were the averages for the remedies they rated most closely:
- Header bidding trafficking available to everyone: 7/10
- Open AdX bidding to rival servers: 6/10
- Ban on first look/last look bidding advantages: 6/10
- Scrap unified pricing rules: 5/10
- No penalty for using rival ad servers: 5/10
- Data portability for publishers: 4/10
- End mandatory AdX-DFP bundling: 4/10
Where publishers see real movement
Header bidding access was the highest rated remedy. Google is now required to open its ad server and exchange to the broader header bidding ecosystem, building on a tool it began testing in 2022. Scott Messer noted that widened access will be particularly helpful for smaller publishers that want to manage line items better; Alex Newberry, chief revenue officer at ContentIgnite, called it a reversal publishers have sought since header bidding emerged as a workaround.
Opening AdX bidding to rival servers also drew optimism, but with a major caveat. Eric Hochberger, co-founder and CEO of Mediavine, called it a “huge” win for publishers that have pushed to switch stacks without sacrificing Google demand. Yet sources said Google’s own AdWords demand, the biggest buyer in AdX, may not actually show up when auctions run through non-Google servers.
Why the 5/10 matters for marketers
The score reflects a common pattern in platform remedies: the language sounds strong, but enforcement and migration economics decide the outcome. Amit Grover, CEO of KPI Village, explained that the ruling moves the pipes more evenly but does not do enough about “the source of the water, which is Google’s demand.”
Several remedies also address practices Google says it already stopped—such as first look and last look in 2019—or are closer to billing and transparency changes than structural shifts. Unbundling AdX and DFP contracts, for instance, scored 4/10 and was described as more of a billing change than a competition reset.
Data portability scored 4/10 despite meaningful transparency value. Making log-level data free could save publishers between $2,500 and $10,000 per month, according to Messer, but it is not the portable, platform-agnostic dataset publishers wanted.
For marketers and media buyers, the practical takeaway is to track whether Google demand actually follows publishers who switch ad servers. If it does not, the remedies may add flexibility on paper without shifting budgets, CPMs or the underlying supply path.
What to watch next
Messer advised publishers not to expect business to change overnight, but to watch how AdX, Prebid and Google’s buying tools interact under the new rules. The test, he said, is whether any of this throws a wrench into Google’s ability to act as the dominant buying agent for open web display.
Executives also want stronger enforcement: a monitoring trustee, clearer targets to reduce Google Ad Manager market share, and support for migration costs. Without those, the concern is that many publishers will not take the risk of switching—and the same structural issues could return to court.
Source: Digiday
