A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Google must change some of its digital advertising business practices but rejected the Department of Justice’s request to force a breakup of the company’s ad technology operations.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to order the divestiture of Google’s ad exchange AdX, the open-sourcing of its publisher ad server DFP’s auction logic, or the contingent divestiture of DFP Remainder. She instead ordered both parties to draft a jointly proposed final judgment within 30 days.
The ruling follows last year’s decision in the same case, where Brinkema found that Google had unlawfully monopolized two markets within the open-web display advertising technology ecosystem and had tied its publisher ad server and ad exchange to maintain dominance. The DOJ had sought both structural and behavioral remedies that went well beyond the original findings.
A second reprieve for Google
The decision marks the second time in a year that Google has avoided a government-mandated breakup. Last September, a different federal judge rejected the DOJ’s proposal to force Google to sell its Chrome web browser in a separate case involving the company’s search monopoly. Google has now beaten back forced divestitures in both of its major antitrust cases, preserving the core businesses that have made it the most profitable advertising company in the world.
“We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,” Google’s Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement to Reuters.
The DOJ took a more measured tone. “The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief in the Google Ad Tech case,” a spokesperson told TheWrap. “We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets. The Department is evaluating appropriate next steps.”
What Google still has to change
The specifics of Google’s required changes were not made public in Brinkema’s ruling, and both parties have 30 days to agree on terms. The judge’s rejection of the DOJ’s proposed remedies does not mean Google escapes unscathed, but it does mean the remedies will be more limited than the government wanted.
The DOJ had argued for a mix of structural fixes, including forcing Google to sell AdX and open-source its auction technology. Brinkema rejected all three structural proposals, suggesting she favors behavioral remedies that address specific anti-competitive practices rather than dismantling the business itself.
Consumer advocacy groups criticized the ruling. Matt Stoller, a prominent critic of Big Tech consolidation, wrote that the decision sends “the wrong message at the wrong time” as companies struggle to compete with Google’s integrated ad stack. The CCIA, a tech industry trade group, praised the decision, with president Matt Schruers calling it confirmation that “antitrust remedies should be narrowly tailored to address specific identified harms.”
The disagreement highlights a tension at the heart of modern antitrust enforcement. Structural remedies like forced divestitures address the root cause of monopoly power but face resistance from courts and companies that argue they cause disproportionate disruption. Behavioral remedies are more politically palatable but often prove difficult to monitor and enforce over time. The track record on behavioral remedies in tech is mixed: previous consent decrees in the Microsoft and Google search cases were criticized for being too weak to change the underlying market structure.
The broader context
The case dates back to the DOJ’s 2023 antitrust lawsuit against Google. Last year’s liability ruling established that Google illegally maintained monopolies over its publisher ad server and ad exchange. The question of remedies, which Brinkema began hearing in November 2025, centered on how far the court should go to restore competition.
The ad tech market is one of the most concentrated corners of the technology industry. Google controls significant portions of both the buy side and sell side of digital advertising, creating what competitors and regulators describe as a vertically integrated monopoly that sets both the rules and the prices. Publishers have complained for years that Google’s dominance leaves them with little negotiating leverage over the fees they pay for ad serving. The European Commission has conducted parallel investigations into the same market dynamics.
The ruling comes at a time when the digital advertising market is under pressure from multiple directions. AI-generated content is disrupting how ads are placed and measured. Privacy regulations in Europe and several US states are limiting the data that advertisers can use for targeting. And macroeconomic uncertainty has pushed some advertisers to cut spending. Google’s ad business generated roughly $300 billion in revenue last year, making it the single largest advertising operation in the world.
For Google, preserving its ad tech stack intact is a significant victory. The company’s ad exchange, ad server, and buying tools work together as an integrated system, and forcing a sale of any piece would have disrupted those connections and potentially allowed competitors to gain a foothold. The behavioral remedies Brinkema is likely to impose will be less disruptive, though the 30-day negotiation period could still produce changes that affect how Google operates in the market.
The DOJ has not indicated whether it will appeal. Legal analysts note that Brinkema’s decision to reject the structural remedies while upholding the finding of monopoly creates an unusual middle ground: Google is an illegal monopolist, but the court is not willing to break it up. Whether the behavioral fixes that emerge from the joint proposal satisfy that finding remains to be seen. A weak final judgment could invite further DOJ action, while a strong one could reshape how the largest player in digital advertising operates for years to come.
discussion