As we celebrate Women’s History Month, we seek improvements in the world toward gender equality and inclusivity. Sadly, on social media this year, we are seeing the opposite. The rise in “tech bro” culture and content and the reduction in moderation is driving negativity toward women and other marginalized groups.

We’ve spent years watching the digital industry grow and evolve, and frankly, what we’re seeing right now is concerning. The platforms we rely on to build community and grow businesses are being transformed by the decisions of a small but influential group of tech leaders—recently referred to as a “broligarchy”—which includes some of the most visible innovators and entrepreneurs in the world.

Social media acts as a mirror to society, magnifying human behavior. It’s an incredibly powerful global tool that has the ability to shape and inform societal shifts in opinion, and how we behave toward each other in real life. The lack of female tech entrepreneurs and voices of women and marginalized communities in these boardrooms is driving a real power imbalance, exacerbated by recent political events. 

What exactly is the broligarchy?

The term burst into the mainstream last year when The Guardian highlighted how this circle was aligning themselves with Donald Trump. Our own research, alongside data from Talkwalker, shows that mentions of the term “broligarchy” have become much more popular over the past year, with over 248,000 mentions globally across social media. The sentiment? Overwhelmingly negative. And the biggest face of the broligarchy? No surprise, it’s Elon Musk, who dominated the conversation more than 12 times over compared to his tech counterparts.

The values set at the top inevitably shape the spaces we create. And when inclusive, diverse values guide platform policies and algorithms, the positive impact can be felt by everyone. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true.

We are seeing the consequences firsthand. Women—who are the most active users, posters, and trend adopters on social platforms—are often confronted with harassment and misogyny. Our research uncovered sobering figures: Mentions of terms like “feminazi” are up 37% year over year. Gendered slurs like “bitch” have risen 14%. Just as alarmingly, discussions around physically violent language, like “choking women,” climbed 11%.

Women are the builders of online communities—and we deserve better

This is personal for us. As women leading a social agency and parents of teenage children who are highly susceptible to being influenced by these platforms, we are seeing firsthand how quickly the social environment is changing and the impact it’s already having on the people who rely on this space to build meaningful relationships—a high proportion of which is women. 

The numbers speak for themselves. In both the U.S. and U.K., women are more frequent users of Meta platforms than men. More than half (54%) of women report using Facebook or Instagram daily. The very companies benefiting from women’s engagement have an opportunity to make decisions that better support and include them. But we need to act. Now.

What can we do?

As brands, marketers, agencies, and digital leaders, we have both a responsibility and a powerful opportunity to drive meaningful change. It starts with the stories we choose to tell and the voices we choose to amplify.

Every campaign, every partnership, and every influencer collaboration is a chance to prioritize inclusion. If we intentionally seek out creators from marginalized communities and actively spotlight their work, we help reshape the narrative—and the culture—of not only the platforms we rely on but society as a whole. 

But representation alone isn’t enough. We also need to invest in mentorship and leadership programs that empower women to rise within the tech industry. If we want a different future for these platforms, we need to change who’s at the table making decisions. That means supporting initiatives that foster diverse talent within our own organizations and across the broader industry. Let’s lead the way for a women-led platform to succeed! 

At the same time, we need to encourage platforms to be more accountable. When companies roll back their DEI programs and weaken content moderation, we can’t afford to stay silent. Together our voices are powerful—and it’s time we unite to use them. 

Finally, we need to rethink the way we manage our own online communities. If you’re responsible for a brand’s social channels, you’re not just a content creator, you’re a community builder. That means setting clear standards for what’s acceptable in your comment sections, actively moderating conversations, and stepping in when toxicity takes root. If we want to build inclusive spaces, we need to actively shape them, rather than just hoping they’ll evolve on their own. In just eight weeks since Meta announced its decision to replace biased fact-checkers, we have seen a rise in hate-driven and explicit content—imagine where we’ll be eight months from now. 

We know this can feel overwhelming. After all, we’re talking about some of the most powerful people and companies in the world. But we believe in the collective power of community, the very thing these platforms were built on.

We, as marketers, brands, agencies, and creators, can use our influence to lift up the voices that need to be heard and build something brighter and better. What we need now is the will. Together, we can make social better and build a digital future and society where everyone belongs.

What if it was never going to last?

More than three decades have passed since the first banner ad appeared on a website. Digital wasn’t just a new frontier, it was a place that experienced stratospheric year-over-year growth—and the unspoken expectation was that growth would continue forever.

That expectation makes sense when you consider how the web became a bigger part of our lives; with every passing year, millions more people got online. As the number of connected swelled, it only seemed logical that digital advertising would continue to expand.

But then, things changed. It’s hard to put an exact date on precisely when the mood shifted. Was it when the digital ad market largely coalesced around a handful of super-giant tech companies? Was it when privacy legislation and consumer attitudes changed, and the practices that were once routine became verboten? Or was it when the strategies that once delivered results started to disappoint?

Like any complex situation, the answer to the question is a combination of all those things, plus several others I couldn’t mention within the confines of an introduction. The point is, the ad industry is desperate. It has no new ideas, and no magic tricks up its sleeve.

The missing impact

If you search for the term “declining efficacy of online ads,” you will come across an article from 2024 warning about how Google Ads no longer deliver the performance they once did. Elsewhere in the results, a 2023 op-ed declares, “Digital advertising is dead. Good riddance.” I spotted another article from 2022 making the same case, as well as a blog from the World Federation of Advertisers outlining ways of “reversing the decline in advertising effectiveness.“

And that is before we get to the mountains of anecdotal data from sites like Reddit and Twitter, where marketers bemoan the increasingly ineffectual platforms that swallow their budgets without driving conversions. “Google has finally lost it. $694 for one unidentified click today,” screams one post from late 2024. Another post asks, “Just how much of a scam are Google Ads???,” citing one conversion over a six-month period when the company spent $3,000.

On social media, things are especially bleak. According to one study, spending on social media advertising declined from 17% in spring 2023 to 11% one year later. This was the lowest level seen in seven years. The study—authored by Northwestern University professor Koen Pauwels—points to a few reasons, but arguably the biggest is that marketing decision-makers aren’t convinced that social media delivers much.

While companies like Meta have detailed profiles on their users and their interests, its data becomes much more threadbare when it pertains to activity beyond the platform. Meta tells you what brands you have engaged with, but not which ones you have bought. That ambiguity—combined with a few other factors, like consumer advertising fatigue and the crowded nature of social media advertising—shows why many marketing leaders believe social media has a middling impact on their company’s bottom line. Paradoxically, the companies at the heart of this dissatisfaction are doing fine.

We haven’t quite reached the point where there is mass pullback from digital advertising. For those companies that decide to limit their online marketing spend, there are likely others—particularly smaller businesses and startups—that will start advertising through search and social for the first time. These new entrants, I imagine, are what’s maintaining the status quo.

I also believe the digital advertising industry sees the writing on the wall. They can’t be blind to the growing unhappiness of their customers. And so, I believe that the industry will try to distract with gimmicks and fads designed to convince advertisers that these platforms aren’t as decrepit as they seem—that there is still life in the industry yet.

Digital advertising’s dead cat strategy

The Australian political consultant Lynton Crosby is most notable for the creation of the “dead cat strategy,” wherein you deliberately say something shocking or provocative so people’s attention is turned to that as opposed to a misstep or failure. It’s the equivalent of throwing a dead cat on the table at a dinner party; people start talking about the dead cat, not the fact that the chicken is overcooked.

What does that look like in the digital marketing world? Take Facebook: Over the past decade, it has made subtle (and eventually unsubtle) tweaks to the newsfeed algorithm so that content from the person’s immediate network is buried under a deluge of “recommended posts,” all with the aim of increasing engagement.

Now it’s taken things a step further by expanding the definition of what it considers to be acceptable content, while also eliminating its fact-checkers. Perhaps Zuckerberg knows that political content—especially the most contentious political content—drives engagement, which, in turn, will increase the number of ad impressions and clicks on his platform. I imagine Elon Musk had the same idea with X, although in his case it completely backfired, driving away the large blue-chip clients with the biggest budgets, leaving only drop-shippers and those touting get-rich-quick ebooks.

You can make a similar case about Google’s generative AI results that now appear at the top of almost every search result. You might think that this is Google’s way of helping the end user—even if the generated text is, far too often, complete nonsense. Alternatively, it’s a way for Google to position itself as not just the through point to information, but rather the source of information.

The little boxes of AI-generated text sit right at the top of the page, just above the adverts; often, the two are the only things you will see when the page finally loads. A cynic would suggest that Google has engineered this to disincentivize people from clicking user-generated content, while encouraging them to click on the links where it receives money. And yes, I am a cynic.

The reek of desperation extends to the industry writ large, particularly when it comes to the breathless promotion of AI, and especially AI agents. The implicit suggestion is that these new products will be the silver bullet that changes everything and starts pushing ROAS metrics in the right direction. Trust me, they won’t. The marketing industry has been using AI for years now—it handles the low-level stuff that naturally lends itself to automation. And, at least for the moment, there is no evidence that AI is capable of tackling anything more complex.

Recognizing the problem

It’s time to recognize that these platforms—the ones which we have relied upon for the past two decades or more—have become rotten. Their cost has gone up without any uptick in campaign performance.

While these companies tout their “innovative” breakthroughs, releasing features and products that nobody asked for, they seem impotent at addressing some of the most endemic flaws within their products. Nearly two decades after Google paid a $90 million settlement over claims that it didn’t do enough to protect advertisers against click fraud, click fraud remains a major problem. (Detecting fraudulent traffic? Gee, that sounds like something AI would be really good at.)

We can hope that these companies have a Lazarene revival and start resembling healthy, functional businesses. Or we can accept reality: We have what we have. It’s time for marketers to think critically about the role digital will have in their campaigns going forward.

The smart ones, in my opinion, will be those that recognize the value of traditional advertising mediums—the ones that value human creativity and thought over AI gimmicks. And, most importantly, the ones that refuse to be distracted by the dead cats on the dining table.

Perplexity is making its biggest marketing bet yet.

The AI search startup has launched its first celebrity-led ad campaign, starring Squid Game actor Lee Jung-jae, in a mid-seven-figure buy across major streaming platforms.

The 90-second ad spot, filmed in Korea, takes a playful jab at Google, dubbed “Poogle” in the ad.

Jung-jae, caught in a Squid Game-like scenario, is trapped in a room with three pressing questions. He first turns to Poogle for answers but is instead shown a list of links. Panicked, he then asks Perplexity—using its voice model—how to remove coffee stains from a white shirt and immediately receives a clear, step-by-step process that helps him escape. Another scene sees him ask, “How do I make cheese stick to pizza?” to which Perplexity quips, “Don’t use glue.”

Future content will show how Jung-jae uses Perplexity in daily life.

The ad marks the beginning of a yearlong partnership between Perplexity and Jung-jae’s management company, Artist United. The firm, which Jung-jae co-owns, has integrated Perplexity’s enterprise pro tier into its workflows for research, drafting, and API-based integration. Perplexity’s chief business officer, Dmitry Shevelenko, told ADWEEK that this was a natural extension of the partnership rather than a cost-offsetting tactic.

“This is a major ad purchase for us,” Shevelenko added.

The timing of the campaign is strategic. Netflix is expected to release Squid Game’s third season in June, giving Perplexity an opportunity to cement itself as a mainstream consumer brand. The startup—now valued at $9 billion—has expanded its product suite, launching an Android assistant, enhancing voice capabilities, and even dabbling in an AI-driven browser, Comet.

“We think you unlock a critical threshold of utility where it’s not just Perplexity is for tech early adopters, it truly is for everyone,” Shevelenko said. “It’s a natural evolution of becoming a staple consumer brand.”

Perplexity currently fields over 20 million queries per day and is aiming to hit 100 million daily searches within the next year.

The ad begins running today in the U.S. before expanding to Korea, Japan, and Europe over the next 10 days. It will air on Amazon Prime, Twitch, Tubi, Disney, and Hulu. Each market will see a localized version—Jung-jae speaks in Korean throughout, while on-screen text and voiceovers will be adapted to the region. Perplexity currently supports 10 languages, including Korean, French, Spanish, and German.

The creative was developed in-house with support from ad agency Sandwich, though Perplexity doesn’t have an official agency of record. Universal McCann is overseeing the social media buy, while Perplexity is managing all streaming placements internally.

Perplexity used its own product to brainstorm elements of the ad, while video production remained human-led, Shevelenko said.

Yahoo Sports debuted a new hub dedicated to coverage of collectibles, in partnership with cllct, Mantel, and Sports Card Investor.

The hub will feature text and video analysis, educational content, and news on sports collectibles. Content will be shared across Yahoo Sports’ social channels and integrated with its coverage when collectibles angles are part of stories.

“We’re thrilled to team up with three trusted voices in the hobby to create a one-stop shop for comprehensive collectibles content,” Yahoo Sports head of content Sam Farber said in a statement. “This experience will deliver news, coverage, and insights to avid collectors and sports fans alike.”

There will not be an ecommerce component at launch, but Yahoo Sports said ads will run in the hub, and it will potentially offer premium sponsorship sales for different content franchises.

Revenue from those ads and premium sponsorships will be shared with its partners.

The Athletic debuted a vertical last August covering the world of sports memorabilia and trading cards as part of a multiyear partnership with commerce platform eBay.

Collectibles, memorabilia, and trading cards from eBay were made shoppable across The Athletic, but financial details were not revealed.

Sports business analyst and former ESPN on-air talent Darren Rovell is behind cllct, a media and marketing consultancy dedicated to the collectibles and memorabilia industry, which will contribute expert insights, original reporting, and unique storytelling to the hub on topics such as card and memorabilia news and trends, profiles of industry trailblazers, and sports auctions, along with exclusive video content.

Mantel, a social media and content platform focused on collectors, will source “Collecting 101” content, collector profiles, and trend stories for the hub, and video series Mantel Quality Stories and weekly newsletters Above the Mantel and Mail Day will also be accessible via the hub.

And trading card content network and data platform Sports Card Investor will provide video content including analysis of the hottest cards of the week, card show vlogs, collector spotlights, interviews from The Geoff Wilson Show, and mailbags.

AI startup ProRata is unveiling a new ad platform, ProRata Ads, which ditches traditional keyword bidding in favor of prompts to create AI-generated ads.

Advertisers upload brand URLs, creative briefs, and audience descriptions, and ProRata’s large language model (LLM) generates ad variations, allowing advertisers to choose those that best align with their brand’s tone.

But ProRata’s AI doesn’t just create ads—it also decides where they run. The platform scans 50 million articles in its database, placing ads next to content that aligns with the brand’s brief. So a shoe brand can bid on ads that appear on general shoe-related articles, but also on specific content, like performance running or marathon training.

These ads will run across ProRata’s publisher partners, including Time and Fortune, as well as on the startup’s own AI search engine, Gist.ai, alongside relevant queries.

“Ads on the open web must evolve to meet the new user experiences that AI platforms offer,” Mark Howard, Time’s chief operating officer, said in an email statement to ADWEEK. “We see this as a solution for AI to empower a new alignment of messages, interactivity and engagement.”

A recent Bain & Company survey of 1,117 people found that 80% now rely on AI-generated results for at least 40% of their searches, slashing organic web traffic by 15% to 25%. Advertisers want in, but the also want ads that convert without the programmatic headache of landing on junky MFA sites.

“This is the future of advertising,” startup ceo, Bill Gross, told ADWEEK. “Without LLM you couldn’t do this at scale”

ProRata’s ad bidding will use a CPC (cost-per-click) model, with a base CPC set at 10 cents.

“As CPMs are being squeezed by untargeted ads, [with relevant ad placement] we can boost publisher revenue by giving them something that’s context sensitive,” Gross said.

After spending the last month testing its ad products with 100 ad partners and 100,000 products, ProRata has seen a nearly 250% increase in click-through rates with contextual matching, outperforming traditional run-of-site ads, said Gross. The company wouldn’t share specifics on its ad partners. ProRata Ads is now opening its ad tools to all brands.

Real-time interactive banner ads

ProRata is also introducing interactive ad banners that let users engage with brands in real time. These AI-powered display ads, which appear on publisher sites, feature a built-in search bar that lets users ask follow-up questions about the brand directly within the ad. The system surfaces relevant answers immediately, creating a more dynamic and engaging ad experience across publisher sites. Startups like Dappier have released interactive banner ad formats as well.

ProRata plans to share user queries from the interactive banners with advertisers, helping them better understand what people are searching for.

ProRata is also rolling out a slider feature, which lets advertisers set the percentage of ad-to-content relevance they want.

Gross sees ProRata Ads as an answer to privacy concerns, offering a way to target audiences without relying on traditional tracking methods.

“We don’t need to cookie you, track your demographics, or analyze your browsing history,” he said. “It’s all about what you’re reading right now. It’s a win-win-win—for readers, who get relevant content; for publishers, who make double the CPM; and for advertisers, who see a much higher ROI.”

Donald Trump’s Department of Justice isn’t backing down from its push to break up Google.

Despite the tech giant’s efforts last week to persuade officials to drop the idea, the DOJ on Friday still called for Google to divest its popular Chrome browser—and potentially Android—as part of its ongoing search antitrust case.

Splitting Google from Chrome would have far-reaching implications in the industry. Chrome’s exclusive data pipeline has long fueled Google’s dominance and losing that edge could weaken its grip—not just on search ads, but on its future of generative AI.

The DOJ is also continuing to suggest that halting Google’s $20 billion deal with Apple, which made Chrome the default browser on iPhones.

The DOJ’s bid to divest Google highlights the administration’s efforts to confront breaking antitrust rules in Silicon Valley.

While those major proposals remain, the DOJ has also made a number of tweaks. This includes the ability for publishers, websites, and content creators to opt out of having their content crawled for search indexing, training AI models, or being repurposed as AI-generated content

Where the DOJ’s proposals have relaxed

Under the proposed remedies, Google can retain its existing investments in AI startups like Anthropic. Under the initial proposal, Google would have been required to divest its holdings in companies like Anthropic.

The DOJ also wants Google to overhaul its Android business to restore competition or face selling the operating system. Previously, it had suggested Google could sell Android instead of making the necessary changes.

Where the DOJ’s proposals have tightened

The DOJ is doubling down on restrictions aimed at curbing Google’s dominance, imposing tighter oversight on its acquisitions and investments in the search text ads market. Google will be required to notify antitrust regulators before making any new investments in its rivals.

While Google can retain its existing investments in Anthropic, it will need to notify antitrust regulators before making any further investments in AI companies.

On the ad side, regulators have shifted focus. Instead of forcing Google to price syndicated search ads at marginal cost or limiting how much rivals can rely on its ad services, the DOJ is prioritizing fairness, transparency, and control for competitors.

As part of that, Google will be required to give advertisers readily-accessible granular placement and performance reporting of ads purchased through Google Analytics and Ads Data Hub.

“I look forward to seeing what this might look like, in particular as it relates to Performance Max,” Arielle Garcia, chief operating officer, Check My Ads, told ADWEEK. “While it is too early to tell how this will unfold, the fact that divestiture is still part of the remedies package [under Trump DOJ], is a positive early sign of sustained momentum behind strong antitrust enforcement against big tech’s abuse of dominance.”

Google has not responded to comments by press time.

“At a time when U.S. digital services are in a fierce global competition for technology leadership, structural remedies that weaken US companies are not wise and risk handing an economic advantage to adversaries abroad,” Matthew Schruers, president and ceo, Computer and Communications Industry Association, said in a statement.

The court will hold a status conference on March 10 to review the progress of the case and address any pending motions.

For years, right-wing political commentator Ben Shapiro has read out the standard 60-second host-read ad, plugging sponsors with the same no-frills efficiency on his podcast.

But this year, his audience will hear something new: real-time answers verifying claims thanks to AI search engine, Perplexity.

This isn’t your typical ad placement. Instead of a scripted endorsement, Shapiro will integrate Perplexity into podcast The Ben Shapiro Show—hosted on The Daily Wire, the conservative media outlet he co-founded in 2015—using it mid-show to verify claims, dig into cultural topics, and reinforce his signature mantra: facts over feelings.

THE TAKEDOWN: AOC losing to facts in today’s Takedown segment powered by new search partner @perplexity_ai

Perplexity is available online at https://t.co/K8swbPpRpd and on iOS, Android, and Mac. pic.twitter.com/uv0EyL9h9o

— The Ben Shapiro Show (@BenShapiroShow) March 7, 2025

The deal, structured as an annual partnership for 2025, marks Perplexity’s first native ad integration with a media outlet. Financial details weren’t disclosed. But beyond the ad mechanics, the partnership signals a broader cultural shift: Tech companies, once shy of aligning with right-wing personalities, are increasingly embracing these platforms—reflecting a changing dynamic between Silicon Valley and political media.

Perplexity was among the tech giants, including Google and Meta, present at President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. It was there that Perplexity’s chief business officer Dmitry Shevelenko met Shapiro for the first time, Shevelenko told ADWEEK.

“Ben very much prides himself on fearlessly pursuing the truth. This was just a good fit,” Shevelenko said.

This isn’t Perplexity’s first foray into advertising—previously, the AI search tool appeared in a Sunday Night Football ad featuring Chargers coach Jim Harbaugh. However, the startup—valued at $9 billion—is taking a different approach with its native ad deal with The Daily Wire. Rather than relying on the traditional sponsored ad format, Perplexity aims to integrate more seamlessly into content, avoiding the typical just another ad feel.

“We always want to have Perplexity be used and it explains itself [in the ad],” Shevelenko said, noting that this deal does not influence answers surfacing on Perplexity.

Welcoming AI despite challenges

The Daily Wire sees the deal with Perplexity as “significant,” the media outlet’s svp of ad revenue, Christine Hoffmann told ADWEEK.

“This would put Perplexity in the range of our top ad partners who are currently spending with The Daily Wire,” Hoffmann said. Neither party commented specifically on the financials of the deal.

Shapiro releases a new episode daily, and Perplexity is expected to be integrated multiple times a week, making an appearance once per show. The podcast surpassed 100 million streams on Spotify in January.

However, as is the case with most AI tools, hallucination can be a concern. While Perplexity provides real-time information, there’s always the possibility of inaccuracies.

Hoffmann noted that Shapiro will use the tool to support discussions but won’t “lean on it in the event it could be misleading.” She added, “If an opportunity exists for something to be incorrect, it’s part of the organic experience.”

Shifting gears to the right

Once wary of aligning with right-wing figures, parts of the tech industry are shifting course, increasingly recognizing the influence of right-leaning leaders, audiences and platforms. Beyond support from figures like Elon Musk, investors Marc Andreessen, and Ben Horowitz have publicly backed Trump. This marks a drastic turn from 2021 when companies scrambled to distance themselves from Trump following the January 6 Capitol riot.

However, Shevelenko said this deal is beyond politics, focusing on the format and nature of Shapiro’s show: a podcast covering current events.

“Trump went on a bunch of podcasts, and it helped him win,” Shevelenko said. “If there’s a lesson from 2024… not choosing to engage with certain types of media, is not good strategy. You need to be where a lot of people are.”

The April 5 deadline to decide TikTok’s U.S. fate may not be set in stone.

While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on March 6, President Donald Trump indicated that he would extend the deadline for TikTok to find a U.S.-based buyer if a deal is not reached, reports The Hill.

Trump noted that the current deadline is still just under one month away. “But if I need an extension, I will probably get it extended … We have a lot of interest in TikTok. China is going to play a role, so hopefully China will approve of the deal,” Trump told reporters.

TikTok is owned by Chinese company ByteDance, and it faced a ban in the U.S. Jan. 19 under the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which was passed by Congress last April and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in January.

TikTok went dark in the U.S. for roughly 14 hours on Jan. 18 and 19. The app was restored after Trump, who had not yet to take office, said he would issue an executive order postponing the ban.

Trump made good on his promise hours after his inauguration Jan. 20, signing an executive order that gave TikTok and ByteDance until April 5 to find a U.S.-based buyer.

Who could buy TikTok?

If the Chinese government agrees to proceed with a sale to a U.S.-based entity, several potential suitors have emerged in recent weeks.

On March 3, Reddit cofounder and Seven Seven Six partner Alexis Ohanian agreed to serve as a strategic advisor on a bid by former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and Kevin O’Leary, an investor and one of the stars of Shark Tank.

Shortly after TikTok’s brief blackout in January, top creator Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, reportedly joined a bid led by Jesse Tinsley, a tech entrepreneur and the founder of Employer.com.

Large American companies like Microsoft, Oracle, and Perplexity have also been part of the conversation.

Trump has also mentioned companies including Neuralink, SpaceX, Tesla, and tech leaders like X’s Elon Musk and Oracle founder Larry Ellison as potential buyers.

Google has been pushing back on its ruling as a search monopoly, making its case directly to the Trump administration, arguing that a forced sale of Chrome—one of the Justice Department’s most disruptive proposed remedies—poses national security risks, Bloomberg first reported.

A Google spokesperson told ADWEKK, “We routinely meet with regulators, including with the DOJ, to discuss this case. As we’ve publicly said, we’re concerned the current proposals would harm the American economy and national security.”

Google’s argument on the search antitrust case, although not new, raises key questions about the tech giant’s strategy, the White House’s role in antitrust enforcement, and what this case signals for big tech under the new administration.

Here are four key questions at the heart of this development.

How common is Google’s approach of engaging with the administration?

While direct engagement with policymakers on antitrust matters is not unusual, the level of scrutiny surrounding Google’s approach raises questions about the White House’s influence, said one antitrust lawyer, who wasn’t authorized to speak to media. They noted that while such outreach is expected, the crucial issue is how much subtle pressure the administration is exerting on enforcement agencies.

“It’s unorthodox to be publicly calling for this if you’re a defendant, but Google is using every avenue available to them. The White House is going to keep a close eye on antitrust and won’t hesitate to pick up the phone and call enforcers.”

In December, Trump announced in a post on Truth Social his nomination of advisor Gail Slater as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division at the DOJ, but a vote has not yet been scheduled on her confirmation.

What does this say about the DOJ’s independence?

The shift from the Biden administration’s tough stance on Google—requiring the sale of Chrome—to one under Trump’s DOJ raises questions about the agency’s independence.

“The whole notion referring to ‘Trump’s DOJ’ seems to raise the question of how independent the DOJ is in this current administration,” said Gartner’s vice president distinguished analyst, Andrew Frank.  

There have been reports of Trump’s intervention in previous cases. In 2019, Trump reportedly tried to block the Time Warner-AT&T merger, the lawyer noted, (AT&T and Time Warner merged in 2018, but AT&T later spun off the WarnerMedia business unit),

Is Google’s engagement with the White House different?

Google is entering the second stage of the remedy phase—where the court could impose landmark changes on Google’s business.

Beyond legal maneuvering, this case underscores the delicate balancing act Google faces.

“It’s a balancing act between doing what’s right for Google’s stakeholders—handling the situation in a way that’s as beneficial to the company—versus protecting its reputation as a neutral party in any partisan conflicts,” Frank said.

Google’s recent backpedaling on its DEI initiatives is an example of how the company is adapting to these changing political dynamics, although Google is far from alone in this example.

How likely is this to tilt in Google’s favor?

While initial remedies called for the company’s breakup, the final resolution tends to be much weaker—as seen in Microsoft’s early 2000s antitrust case. Google may be positioning itself for a similar outcome, negotiating a more favorable settlement.

The lawyer suggested that the DOJ’s final proposal, expected on Friday, could be a scaled-back version of its initial demands. While a full Chrome divestiture remains a possibility, the key question is how much the DOJ will soften its remedy.

“Historically, antitrust settlements tend to weaken over time, and Google’s direct engagement with the administration signals an effort to soften the outcome,” the lawyer said.