Google will not be forced to sell its online advertising exchange. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema has rejected the Justice Department’s request to break up the company’s ad-tech business, choosing instead to impose a set of behavioural restrictions for six years. Her full 106-page opinion was unsealed on Wednesday, September 16.
What the government wanted
In April 2025, Brinkema ruled that Google had illegally monopolised the markets for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, the behind-the-scenes systems that sell display advertising on websites. The Justice Department and a coalition of states asked her to order Google to divest AdX, its exchange, and to keep restrictions in place for 15 years.
What the judge ordered instead
- No forced sale of AdX.
- Untying: websites using Google’s ad server will no longer be required to use AdX.
- More access for rivals: competing ad servers will get greater access to AdX’s real-time bids.
- Separation of commercial terms between Google’s ad server and its exchange.
- An internal compliance monitor to police the rules.
- Duration: six years, far shorter than the 15 years the government sought.
The liability finding stands, and Google has said it will appeal it. The parties have 30 days to submit a proposed final judgment.
Reactions
Google welcomed the decision not to split up its tools, arguing that a forced sale would have hurt the smaller businesses that rely on them. The Justice Department also claimed a win: Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. called the ruling “a significant win for the government’s effort to restore competition.”
Why it matters
Advertising accounts for about three-quarters of Alphabet’s revenue, though the ad-tech tools at issue are a small part of its profits. Publishers have long complained about the fees taken by intermediaries; AdX charges websites about 20% of each sale. If the remedies work, news sites and other publishers could keep a larger share of ad revenue and have more freedom to mix and match suppliers. Critics of the ruling argue that behavioural rules are hard to enforce and that only a breakup would restore real competition.
The decision is the second major antitrust remedy against Google in two years, after a separate ruling in the search case, and it will be closely studied by regulators in Europe and elsewhere.