Because as clear as the verdict was, the path forward is anything but. Google’s likeliest appeasement to the verdict — a forced divesture of its ad server and exchange — may take years to materialize. And, even if it happens, it may fall short of what many industry observers are hoping for.

“The implications are still incredibly unclear,” said the commercial lead at a publisher in the U.S., who exchanged their candor on the subject for anonymity. “No one really knows what this will mean in practice, especially with appeals likely to stretch out for years.”

So for now, publishers are left in limbo. Vindicated, maybe, but very much in the dark with more questions than answers. Some are technical. All are urgent. For instance, what about AdSense?

The ad network predates Google’s ad server and its exchange. And while it’s been mostly absent from legal findings it’s deeply entangled with both, as the Marketecture newsletter recently pointed out. The free version of Google’s ad server, Google Ad Manager (GAM), is effectively an on-ramp to AdSense for publishers. Without it, that product has no reason to exist. Meanwhile, the AdX exchange supplies much of AdSense’s demand. Untangling it wouldn’t just be messy — it would require a wholesale rewrite of how publishers manage yield.

That might sound overly technical but that’s exactly the point. Fixing a monopoly this entrenched won’t be easy. Every potential remedy brings a cascade of consequences both seen and unforeseen. The future of AdSense is just one example.

Which helps explain publishers’ quiet on the matter. There are still too many unknowns to justify bold moves. It’s better for them to sit tight than undertake something as costly and complex as switching ad servers — the backbone of digital monetization — unless absolutely necessary. Especially with appeals likely to drag on for years.

“Publishers need immediate help, and this [potential Google divestiture] isn’t going to be an immediate opportunity for them to earn more revenue,” said a U.S. senior publishing exec.

If Google is made to divest its ad server and exchange it could emerge from this lawsuit less tethered to the open web than ever. With fewer obligations to support the broader digital ecosystem, Google would be free to invest in its owned and operated platforms — YouTube, Discover, AI Overviews and whatever else keeps users inside its increasingly self-contained universe.

The result: less centralized revenue for publishers and even more control for Google.

And it may not stop there. Freed from the commitment of maintaining the open web’s infrastructure, Google could even pull back its own programmatic buying tool DV360 from bidding on inventory outside its walls. In that scenario, the company doesn’t just spin off the plumbing, it shuts off the water.

The irony isn’t lost on observers. “Ironic”, they note, that Google’s grip on display advertising may loosen just as ad dollars from it become less of a focal point for publishers’ commercial ambitions. AI-generated content is flooding search results. Social platforms have retreated from news. Monetization is harder than ever. A legal win may have landed, but the market may already be moving on.

“This just feels like another complex, drawn-out shift,” said the commercial lead. “There is definitely some fatigue in the publisher community, which I think explains the muted reaction so far. Google remains a major revenue source for most publishers, even if parts of their stack are a black box.”

Others are even more scathing. Now, staring at the threat of AI Overviews on future referral traffic, there is a growing theory that Google isn’t so concerned about the future of its ad server. “They’ve already sucked all the value out of publisher advertising and digital advertising in its current format, and they can say — ‘sure get rid of the ad server, it’s like a rented mule, we’re done with this.’ They’ve mined all the gold, and it’s now more of a commodity at this point — it’s just a wasteland. But there is gold in the next hills, and that’s AI,” said a U.S. publishing executive.

None of this suggests publishers are indifferent to Google’s fate. After all it’s cost them, they clearly aren’t. Any serious challenge to its dominance would be welcome. But the subdued response from publishers says a lot. Years of false starts and broken promises have trained publishers not to get their hopes up. Now, for the first time, real change seems possible. And that’s a hard thing to absorb — the idea of life beyond the system they’ve been forced to operate in for so long. It’s the uncertainty of what comes next that looms largest.

That’s why some publishers argue the way the remedy is handled may matter as much — if not more — than the remedy itself.

Without structural guardrails, a Google sans GAM and AdX could still wield outsized influence through exclusive partnerships of opaque algorithms. For instance, nothing currently prevents Google Ads or DV360 from routing the bulk of their demand to a single post-spin exchange, effectively re-establishing dominance by other means.

The judge could prevent this and impose behavioral remedies: transparency mandates, anti-preferencing requirements and fair dealing standards. But defining what “fair” and “transparent” means to programmatic marketers is murky at best. Would it be based on fraud detection? Take rates? Data access? Performance outcomes? These are dynamic, often proprietary decisions made in real time — hard to audit, harder to regulate.

The same issues arise with AdSense and AdMob. If Google is allowed to continue offering monetization products that benefit from exclusive access to its massive pool of advertisers, even without an ad server, the power imbalance could simply reconstitute itself. For these reasons, publishers warn that meaningful oversight — not just a divesture — is necessary to avoid a repeat of the past.

“Many would accept a commitment from Google that it will stop entering its demand after an ad auction has already completed, when it knows what it has sold for so can buy the inventory for a penny more,” said a U.S. publisher who spoke on condition of anonymity. “The ethical thing to do would be to introduce that demand into the auction.”

One thing is clear: Should Google be forced to spin out its ad server and exchange then they would be diminished versions of their former selves. Especially if they’re separated from one another.

AdX, which still controls an estimated 50% of open exchange traffic, would lose access to Google’s ad server, shared infrastructure and preferential workflows. GAM, which serves the vast majority of publishers’ impressions, becomes a commoditized SaaS platform with thin margins and limited upside. Split apart, their individual values would shrink: AdX becomes just another exchange and GAM loses the demand source it was most optimized to serve. 

“I don’t see a path forward that doesn’t involve decoupling GAM from Google demand (AdX and AdSense). And without AdX, GAM becomes a solid, but limited, product — best for direct sales, but not built for true open market optimization,” said the head of revenue for a gaming site, who asked to remain anonymous over concerns of reprisals from Google.

But it’s also what gives some publishers and ad tech insiders a rare sense of optimism. The verdict cracks open a door that’s long been bolted shut. If AdX demand becomes transactable via OpenRTB in one form or another — and there’s no guarantee that will happen — it would create a massive market opportunity. For years, many players were boxed out because Google didn’t want to place nice.

The moment may not feel like a victory yet, but it could market the start of a long overdue reset.