A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Google does not have to break up its adtech business — a significant decision following the Justice Department’s pursuit of a drastic remedy after the tech giant was identified as operating an illegal monopoly in several online advertising markets.
This ruling marks the second instance where Google has successfully defended itself against breakup attempts from the DOJ. In a previous case last year, a federal judge dismissed efforts to force the company to divest its Chrome browser over concerns related to its dominance in the search market.
However, this latest outcome does not mean that Google can entirely evade consequences. In an order from the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie Brinkema accepted “most of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies.” Specifics of these remedies have yet to be disclosed, as the judge’s full opinion is temporarily sealed to allow for the redaction of sensitive information.
The proposed changes to Google’s operations include adjustments intended to foster a more competitive environment within the adtech sector and reduce preferential treatment for its services. According to the DOJ, this ruling signifies a victory in the fight to restore competition and provide better outcomes for consumers in online advertising markets.
“The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief in the Google Ad Tech case,” remarked a DOJ spokesperson. “We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets.”
In a related decision from April 2025, Judge Brinkema expressed in her ruling that Google had “willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising.” Given Google’s substantial revenue of approximately $294 billion in advertising last year, the company maintains a crucial role within the adtech landscape.
Moving forward, Google may be compelled to modify certain auction practices that previously benefited its own ad exchange over competitors. There may also be requirements for the ad exchange to operate more smoothly with rival ad servers, enhancing options for publishers regarding advertising technologies.
Despite the favorable ruling regarding structural changes, Google had argued against the incursion into its Ad Manager functionality, which encompasses tools utilized for multiple advertising purposes beyond the realm of open web display ads, including video and app advertisements. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s VP for regulatory affairs, expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision to deny the breakup, 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.”
Some experts in the adtech field, however, have suggested that separating supply and demand components of Google’s services could stimulate innovation, reduce costs for advertisers, and inflate revenues for publishers. Questions remain regarding who would be interested in acquiring any separated components and whether such sales could lead to further monopolization.
According to a note from the research firm Madison and Wall, although the remedies include measures such as equal access for competitors and data sharing, it is doubtful they will radically transform the adtech industry dynamics.
Nonetheless, there is cautious optimism that a relaxation of Google’s dominant position could create a more equitable marketplace for other operators in the sector. Following last year’s antitrust ruling, both adtech companies and publishers, including Business Insider, have initiated lawsuits seeking damages against Google pertaining to alleged anticompetitive behaviors.
