A federal judge has declined to break up Google’s advertising-technology business, marking the second major antitrust defeat for the Justice Department’s push to dismantle the search giant’s operations. In a ruling handed down Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia said Google will be allowed to keep its ad-tech unit intact, but must alter certain business practices to give competitors a fairer shot.
The decision follows an April 2025 finding by Judge Brinkema that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly in the ad-tech market. This week’s ruling addressed only the remedy, and the judge did not specify what operational changes Google will be required to make, according to The New York Times. Her full written opinion will remain under seal for 14 days so both parties can issue redactions.
Also read: Trump-emblazoned $1 coins go on sale — and the Mint is charging a major mark-up
Second antitrust defeat for DOJ breakup push
The ruling mirrors the outcome of Google’s separate search antitrust case. In 2024, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Google’s search business constituted an illegal monopoly. But when it came time to decide the penalty in September 2025, Mehta rejected the Justice Department’s request to force Google to divest its Chrome browser and Android operating system. Instead, he ordered the company to end exclusive default-search placement deals and to share certain search data with rivals — remedies Google is currently appealing.
The Justice Department had pursued both cases simultaneously, filing its search lawsuit in 2020 and its ad-tech suit in 2023. In both instances, courts sided with the government on the core question of whether Google held illegal monopoly power. But judges have now twice declined to impose the harshest available penalty, signaling a judicial preference for behavioral remedies over structural ones.
Also read: U.S. National Debt Tops $40 Trillion, Sparking Warnings of Social Security Cuts by 2032
What the case was really about
At the heart of the government’s ad-tech case was a web of agreements that made Google the default search engine on devices worldwide. The DOJ argued that Google used exclusive contracts with device manufacturers and revenue-sharing deals with mobile carriers — where carriers received a cut of ad revenue in exchange for keeping Google as the default — to lock in its position across phone markets.
Those arrangements, the government contended, created a self-reinforcing loop: default placement drove search volume, which generated ad revenue, which funded the payments that kept Google as the default. The online advertising ecosystem is notoriously opaque, and much of the case centered on how these interconnected markets — search ads, display ads, and the ad-tech tools that connect buyers and sellers — reinforced one another.
Google calls it a win, but uncertainty remains
Google framed the outcome as a victory. Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’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.”
But the ruling is not a clean win. Google still faces the possibility of significant operational changes, and the specifics of those changes could emerge once the sealed opinion is released. The company also continues to appeal the remedies in its search case, meaning the legal uncertainty around its business practices is far from resolved.
For publishers, advertisers, and small businesses that rely on Google’s ad tools, the practical impact of the ruling will depend heavily on what those operational changes turn out to be. The judge’s decision to avoid a breakup preserves the current structure of the ad market, at least for now, but leaves open the possibility that Google will be forced to open parts of its ad stack to competitors in ways that could shift how digital advertising dollars flow.
As the appeals process plays out, the broader question of how far antitrust law can reach into platform business models remains unresolved. Two courts have now found Google liable for illegal monopolization, yet the company has so far avoided the structural remedies the government sought. That tension is likely to define the next phase of this litigation, regardless of which party ultimately prevails on appeal.
