Last year, a federal judge found Google operated an illegal monopoly on key parts of the open-web advertising-technology market. In an earlier blog, we covered that ruling and the Justice Department’s request that Google be forced to sell parts of its ad-tech business.
Google’s ad-tech business provides the behind-the-scenes tools that help make ads appear on websites. Publishers use Google Ad Manager, while Google’s AdX exchange sells that space through rapid, automated auctions among advertisers. According to the ruling, Google favored its own ad exchange, AdX, by giving it special advantages through its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers (now part of Google Ad Manager).
Now, Judge Brinkema has decided what consequence Google will face. And spoiler alert: it will not be a corporate breakup.
A federal judge turned down the DOJ’s request to force a sale of parts of Google’s ad-tech operation. Instead, she ordered mostly behavioral changes to prevent Google from tilting its systems and ad auctions toward itself. The exact requirements are not fully public yet because the accompanying opinion remains under seal.
No Forced Sale for Google
After U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s April 2025 ruling, the DOJ sought a structural remedy: it wanted Google to sell AdX, the ad exchange at the center of the case.
The government also asked the court to require open-sourcing of the auction mechanism associated with Google’s publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers. The DOJ’s position was that Google’s control of both systems created an inherent conflict of interest, and that new rules alone could not undo it.
But Judge Brinkema was not convinced that a breakup was the answer. In her September 2 order, she rejected the DOJ’s proposals for structural remedies. As a result, Google will retain AdX and DoubleClick for Publishers. That is a major practical win for Google, even though the company previously lost the underlying monopolization claims involving those products.
Rules Instead of a Breakup
Google will still face court-ordered changes; Judge Brinkema accepted most of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies with modifications that are not yet public.
Behavioral remedies are rules for how a company must operate rather than an order requiring it to sell or separate part of its business. Here, those measures are intended to give Google’s customers more choice and prevent Google from favoring ads that run through its own systems over bids and tools from rival ad-tech companies.
The problem is that the public does not yet know precisely what all those rules will look like. Judge Brinkema issued the detailed memorandum opinion under seal because it cites significant confidential material. She gave the DOJ and Google two weeks to identify any portions that need redaction. Once that process is complete, the court is expected to release either the full opinion or a public redacted version.
For now, we know the broad result: Google will face new limits, but it will not have to sell AdX or dismantle its publisher-side ad-tech operation.
Why This Matters
What’s the DOJ worried about? Well, Google was found to have used its control over these interconnected ad-tech tools to help itself win. Letting Google keep both tools, the government argued, is a little like telling a referee they can stay in charge of the game as long as they promise to stop rooting for their own team.
That concern is not hypothetical. The April 2025 ruling found that Google tied its publisher ad server to AdX and used policies and product design to cement its position in both markets. In the government’s view, conduct rules may curb particular practices, but they do not erase the built-in incentive for Google to give its own systems an edge.
Advocacy groups made the same point after the remedies decision. Public Knowledge’s legal director, John Bergmayer, called the ruling “disappointing” because it leaves Google in control of both products and preserves the conflict of interest that made the unlawful conduct possible. Bergmayer acknowledged that requirements involving interoperability, data portability, nondiscrimination, and monitoring could give publishers and rival ad-tech companies a better shot. But he warned that those safeguards will only matter if they have real teeth – and if someone is watching closely enough to catch evasions.
Not everyone sees the decision as a soft slap on the wrist, though. The Computer & Communications Industry Association applauded Judge Brinkema’s refusal to order a breakup, arguing that the DOJ’s proposal went beyond what the court found Google had actually done wrong. In its view, antitrust remedies should target the proven violation, not serve as a wholesale corporate demolition project.
A Familiar DOJ Problem
This is not the first time the DOJ has won a major Google antitrust ruling but fallen short on its preferred remedy.
In its separate search-monopoly case, the DOJ wanted the court to make Google sell off its Chrome browser and curb the lucrative deals that help keep Google Search front and center on phones and browsers. The judge declined to make Google give up Chrome. But while it avoided divestiture, Google did not get to walk away without new rules. The court barred certain exclusive distribution agreements, ordered Google to share specified search-index and user-interaction data with qualified competitors, and required the company to offer search and search-text-ad syndication services.
The ad-tech ruling follows a similar pattern. The government proved important monopolization claims, but its victory did not result in a corporate breakup.
What Happens Next?
The DOJ’s Antitrust Division nevertheless said it was pleased the court had ordered substantial relief and was evaluating its next steps. Google and the DOJ did not immediately announce whether they plan to appeal the remedies ruling. Google has already indicated it intends to appeal the underlying liability decision once final judgment is entered.
Judge Brinkema has given Google and the DOJ 30 days to submit a jointly proposed final judgment that incorporates her remedies ruling. If they agree, the court can enter a final judgment that spells out the rules Google must follow. If they cannot agree on particular terms, they must submit their competing versions to the judge. She may then order more briefing or hold another hearing.
For businesses that buy digital advertising or rely on websites to generate leads (like many law firms), the decision matters because Google’s tools play a major role in how online ad inventory is bought, sold, and priced. Based on what is publicly known as of this writing, the ad-tech system will not undergo a fundamental reorganization. But the court-ordered behavioral rules could still affect how easily advertisers and publishers can work across platforms. The exact practical impact will depend on the final terms of the remedy and how they are enforced.
