The Justice Department has spent years attempting to break up Google’s gargantuan advertising business across two separate antitrust lawsuits: one filed in 2020 focused on Google’s dominance in search, and a second filed in 2023 that specifically targeted Google’s ad-technology business. Both cases argued that the search giant’s grip on the digital ad economy represents an illegal monopoly.
Courts have largely sided with the government in both cases. In 2024, a court determined that Google’s search business, including its exceedingly lucrative search-ad operation, was an illegal monopoly, claiming that the tech giant had “exercised its monopoly power” to dominate the search industry and search ads. Last April, a second court case — this one focused specifically on Google’s ad-tech business — also came to the same conclusion.
Following the 2024 ruling, Justice Department officials suggested a variety of ways Google’s search business could be broken up, including divesting its Chrome browser and Android operating system. But in September 2025, the judge overseeing that case, Amit Mehta, rejected those divestiture requests, ruling that Google could keep both Chrome and Android. He did order the company to end exclusive default-placement deals and share certain search data with competitors (remedies that Google is currently appealing).
That same pattern held this week. In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who oversaw the ad-tech case, said that Google would be able to keep its advertising business. Instead of selling it, the search giant will instead be required to adjust its business practices to favor competitors, Brinkema said. The New York Times notes that the judge’s ruling “did not provide specifics” as to how Google should go about doing that.
Brinkema’s full written ruling will remain under seal for 14 days to allow those involved to issue necessary redactions. Her finding that Google had acted illegally in maintaining its ad-tech business dates back to April of last year; this week’s decision addressed only the remedy.
Unsurprisingly, Google framed the outcome as a win. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, told TechCrunch: “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.”
The online advertising ecosystem is notoriously opaque and byzantine and, for most people unfamiliar with its complexities, difficult to grasp. Much of the government’s ad-tech case against Google revolved around the company’s tactics to ensure that its search engine was the default engine in devices across the world, which in turn helped its ad business dominate as well.
To do this, Google used exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, which made it the default search engine across huge swaths of the mobile phone market, the government has argued. Google also entered into revenue sharing agreements with mobile carriers — deals where carriers earned a cut of ad revenue in exchange for keeping Google as the default — that further cemented its position as the de facto search engine across phone markets.
When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.
{content}
Key Takeaways
- No Breakup for Google’s Ad Empire:Despite courts finding Google an illegal monopoly in both its search and ad-tech businesses, judges in both cases have rejected government calls for structural remedies like divesting Chrome, Android, or the ad business itself.
- Behavioral Changes Mandated:Instead of divestiture, both rulings impose “behavioral remedies,” requiring Google to alter its business practices to foster competition. However, specifics for the ad-tech case remain vague, raising questions about enforceability.
- A Win for Google (for now):Google has publicly hailed the decisions as a victory, preserving its integrated business model. The ongoing appeals and the challenge of defining and enforcing behavioral changes mean the battle is far from over.
Google’s Antitrust Gauntlet: Courts Confirm Monopoly, But Hold Back the Ax
In a significant development for the digital advertising landscape and the broader tech industry, federal courts have consistently affirmed that Google operates as an illegal monopoly in key sectors. However, the path to reining in the tech giant’s power has proven less straightforward, with judges opting for less disruptive “behavioral remedies” rather than the structural breakups sought by the Justice Department.
The Dual Front: Search and Ad-Tech Under Fire
For years, the U.S. Justice Department has waged a two-pronged legal war against Google. The first lawsuit, launched in 2020, zeroed in on Google’s pervasive dominance in the search engine market and its lucrative associated advertising operations. The second, filed in 2023, specifically targeted Google’s vast ad-technology business, alleging that its integrated ecosystem stifles competition across the entire digital advertising supply chain.
In both instances, the courts have largely sided with the government on the fundamental charge: Google’s grip on these markets constitutes an illegal monopoly. A landmark 2024 ruling declared Google’s search business, including its highly profitable search-ad operations, an illegal monopoly, asserting that the company had “exercised its monopoly power” to unlawfully dominate the sector. This finding set a powerful precedent. Last April, a separate court case, focusing squarely on Google’s sprawling ad-tech empire, arrived at the same conclusion, affirming the tech giant’s unlawful monopolistic behavior within this complex ecosystem.
The Search Remedy: A Blueprint for Restraint, Not Division
Following the 2024 judgment in the search case, Justice Department officials put forth a series of aggressive proposals aimed at restructuring Google’s business. These included the radical suggestion of divesting key assets like the Chrome browser and the Android operating system, arguing that such a breakup was necessary to truly foster competition. However, in September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta, overseeing that case, rejected these sweeping divestiture requests. While allowing Google to retain Chrome and Android, he imposed specific behavioral remedies: Google was ordered to end its exclusive default-placement deals that favor its search engine and to share certain search data with competitors. These remedies, intended to level the playing field, are currently under appeal by Google, indicating a prolonged legal skirmish.
Navigating the Ad-Tech Labyrinth: A Monopoly Maintained
The online advertising ecosystem is notoriously opaque, byzantine, and incredibly difficult for outsiders to comprehend. At its core, it connects advertisers with publishers, facilitating the buying and selling of ad space in real-time. Google, through a vast array of interconnected products—including its ad server for publishers (Ad Manager), its ad exchange (AdX), its demand-side platform for advertisers (DV360), and its ad server for advertisers (Campaign Manager)—occupies nearly every step of this complex supply chain. The government’s ad-tech case argued that Google leveraged its dominant position at various points in this “ad stack” to self-preference its own products, exclude rivals, and extract outsized fees, effectively creating a closed ecosystem that stifled innovation and harmed both publishers and advertisers.
This week, the pattern of judicial restraint from the search case was echoed in the ad-tech ruling. Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who presided over the ad-tech case, determined that Google would be permitted to retain its advertising business. Instead of a forced sale or breakup of its ad-tech components, Google will instead be required to “adjust its business practices to favor competitors.” Crucially, however, Judge Brinkema’s ruling “did not provide specifics” as to the precise mechanisms or guidelines Google must follow to implement these changes. The full written ruling will remain sealed for 14 days, pending necessary redactions from involved parties. This decision on remedies follows her earlier finding in April of last year that Google had indeed acted illegally in maintaining its ad-tech monopoly.
Google’s Stance and the Road Ahead
Unsurprisingly, Google quickly framed the outcome as a significant victory. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, expressed the company’s satisfaction to TechCrunch, stating, “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 consistently argues that its integrated suite of products benefits users and businesses by offering efficient, innovative, and often free services.
The consistent judicial preference for behavioral remedies over structural breakups highlights a fundamental tension in modern antitrust enforcement. While a breakup might offer a cleaner separation of powers, it carries the risk of disrupting complex technical infrastructure and potentially harming innovation. Behavioral remedies, though less drastic, pose significant challenges in terms of definition, implementation, and ongoing enforcement. Without clear, actionable specifics, as noted in the ad-tech ruling, such remedies can be difficult to monitor effectively and may allow dominant companies to find loopholes. The ongoing appeals process for both cases, combined with the lack of detailed guidance on compliance, suggests that the legal battles over Google’s market power are far from over and will likely continue to shape the digital economy for years to come.
Bottom Line
The rulings against Google represent a landmark moment in tech antitrust, definitively establishing that the search giant has indeed wielded illegal monopoly power in both its search and advertising businesses. Yet, by choosing behavioral remedies over structural divestitures, the courts have signaled a cautious approach, preserving Google’s integrated empire while attempting to compel fairer competition. The true impact of these decisions hinges on the enforceability of these non-specific behavioral changes and the persistent vigilance of regulators. The battle has shifted from proving monopoly to defining how it can be curtailed without dismantling a core component of the global digital infrastructure, a challenge that will continue to test the limits of antitrust law in the modern age.
Source:{feed_title}