The U.S. government attempted to tear down Google (GOOG, GOOGL) stronghold at a hearing Friday, aiming to address how best to restore competition in the two online advertising markets.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Alexandria, Virginia, set the September 22 "Remedy" trial date as the "Remedy" trial date in the face of the Justice Department's efforts to break Google's AD Tech Monopoly.

Google Now must defend that part of its empire from breaking up, while doing the same thing in another antitrust trial, in which the Justice Department is seeking to divest the tech giant's Chrome search browser.

In this case, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta found Google's responsibility to illegally monopolize the general search engine market and the market for universal search engine texts.

Now, he is considering stripping Google's high-priced Chrome browser and its Android operating system, as well as its restrictions on implementing AI tools.

In the AD Tech monopoly case, Justice Brinkema ruled in April with the Justice Department and 17 state attorneys generals that the tech giant used illegal tactics to prevent competition in the market for online advertising.

The ruling gives judges discretion to allow or deny government requests to consider a divestment known as a “structural remedy.”

Specifically, the Justice Department argues that Google's suite of advertising managers (including publisher's DoubleClick, publisher-side advertising servers and Google Ad Exchange), its exchange platform (which should radiate online ads for buyers and sellers' brokers).

Google is trying to get the judge to eliminate the option of divestiture. It was “to be killed,” said Daniel McCuaig, a former trial attorney for the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, who is now a partner with Cohen Milstein.

But Google hasn't reached its own ranks, which exacerbates its business risks as it insists on fighting multiple subsidiaries in the two major antitrust failures it has suffered in the past year. However, Justice Brinkema did express concern about excessive remedies during the hearing and pointed out that the wrong remedies could cause additional harm. For example, if Google's ad server is removed, the publisher may think there is no benefit.

"Other recommendations from the Department of Justice that forced our advertising technology tools to be stripped far beyond the court's findings, have no legal basis and can harm publishers and advertisers," said Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president of regulatory affairs at Google.