Google has dodged another forced break-up, leaving US trustbusters clutching behavioural remedies and a thumping court defeat.
According to the Financial Times, US district judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the Department of Justice’s push to make Google sell off its AdX advertising exchange and publisher ad server.
The DoJ had argued that only a forced sale would prise open Google’s grip on digital advertising. Brinkema instead went for behavioural remedies, which are expected to involve data sharing and making Google’s ad tools work with rival products.
It is the second time US courts have found Google behaving like a monopoly, then stopped short of taking a chainsaw to its parent company, Alphabet. The ruling is another nadgers for Washington’s campaign to curb big tech’s habit of treating markets like private allotments.
Judge Amit Mehta pulled a similar move in the search monopoly case. He found Google had run an illegal monopoly but refused to make it sell Chrome or Android, choosing remedies such as more search data sharing and restrictions on exclusive distribution deals.
Those deals included the roughly $20 billion Google paid the Fruity Cargo Cult Apple each year to remain the default search engine on its devices. Job’s Mob did rather nicely out of that little arrangement, which was handy for everyone except rivals trying to get a look-in.
Both judges worried that forcing spin-offs from businesses this tangled would be a legal and technical slog. They were also concerned that appeals could drag on for years while AI reshapes the market and makes the remedies look ancient.
Google vice-president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said: “We’re very pleased the court rejected the DoJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,”
Alphabet shares have climbed 57 per cent in the past 12 months, helped by investors deciding that the search giant will keep surviving antitrust defeats, with its crown jewels still in the cabinet. In April 2025, Brinkema found Google had “wilfully” built an illegal online ad monopoly through anti-competitive contracts and tight integration between its products.
Google’s AdX is the biggest marketplace for bidding on online ad space, while its publisher ad server is widely used by publishers to sell adverts on their sites. Brinkema found that Google had used its position to levy a 20 per cent fee that eroded publishers’ earnings.
Brinkema rejected another chunk of the government’s case, finding that prosecutors had not proved Google unfairly dominated advertiser ad networks. Her full opinion will stay sealed for two weeks while Google and the DoJ hammer out final remedies and redact confidential evidence.
The DoJ said: “The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief. We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets.”
American Economic Liberties Project’s Laurel Kilgour said: ” Anti-monopoly campaigners were less impressed, calling the ruling toothless and unlikely to dent Alphabet’s power. Judges keep finding Google guilty, but it keeps walking away with both its ill-gotten gains and its empire intact. Without structural remedies, antitrust rulings are just inconvenient speed bumps.”
