So in respect to the ad unit, the argument is that they have grown to such a size that brands (from mom and pop's restaurant, to coke, nike) are overspending for the service. If you read on some of the ad tech blogs (not my specialty) there seems to be a strong case there is rampant fraud in metrics and what customers (the brands) are actually getting when they spend their ad dollars with googles many, many platforms. This doesn't seem to be unique with google, meta and others seems to do similar, but google is the big boy on the block. The anti-trust thing is required (in the governments eyes) as there is not a viable alternative, at least for organic search, for these brands.

The value to consumers is hypothetically that splitting it up will increase competition in the ad tech space. This will in turn lower ad spends from brands and hopefully push their real metrics to be more accurate, less fraud, etc. This will in turn lower advertising spend for these brands will which theoretically end up in lower costs to consumers.

Some other random thoughts. 1. Why would google (or any of them) make a good faith effort to stamp out fraud when it is lining their pockets? They are so big their really isn't a strong alternative and brands can't choose to just not play. 2. Why should the dominate browser effectively drive the privacy/tracking conversation for the largest ad tech player? This is an inherent conflict of interest and is unlikely to lead to better privacy for the consumer. 3. Why should a company that benefits from tracking/analytics be driving the development of one of the top 2 OS for mobile. On face value we are heading towards a world where buyers have to pay a premium for privacy (arguably iPhone, debatable), but android (largely budget phones) have no such or at least inferior protections. Why would they ever strengthen consumer privacy on mobile if its lining their pockets now.