Judge spares Google’s ad-tech business from a breakup

Back in April 2025, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) proudly proclaimed that it had prevailed in a landmark antitrust case against Google’s ad business. Yeah. Right. You see, just last week, US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema rejected the DoJ’s effort to force Google to sell its AdX ad exchange. What began as a major anti-monopoly victory has become a mouse-sized settlement.  [ Google US antitrust trials: A timeline ] Does any of this this sound familiar? It should. We’ve seen this show before. Last year, Google had also been convicted of abusing its search business. At first, all the talk was about how Google might be forced to divest itself of the Chrome browser and/or the Android operating system.  Instead, Google was allowed to keep making search deals and only had to share some search data with its rivals.  I say rivals, but in fact Google still dominates the search market. Indeed, its control has actually expanded a bit. By StatCounter’s numbers, in August 2025, Google search owned 89.89% of the market. By last month, almost a year after the company had been slapped on the wrist, its share had grown to 91.1%.  Boy, wasn’t that a win? The remedies phase of the government’s ad-tech antitrust case order is a similar Google win. No, it doesn’t overturn the April 2025 finding that Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in the publisher ad-server and ad-exchange markets, or that it illegally tied its ad server and exchange together. Instead, it determines how the company must change its conduct. The DoJ wanted Google to divest itself of AdX, the company’s ad exchange for matching publisher inventory with advertiser demand. It also sought to require Google to open-source the final-auction logic in its DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) ad server and, if necessary, divest its DFP business.  Brinkema rejected all three requests. Instead, her short order accepts “most” of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies, subject to modifications described in a memorandum opinion that remains sealed while the parties identify confidential information for redaction. Specifically, the court directed Google and the plaintiffs to meet and submit a joint proposed final judgment within 30 days. If they cannot agree on the details, each side must submit its own proposed version. Google — as it should — sees this as a win. As Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a statement, “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.” Far less convincing is the DOJ’s characterizing the decision as a win. “The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief in the Google ad-tech case. We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets.”  Oh please! It does nothing of the sort. To quote Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly, nonprofit group: “Judges keep finding Google guilty, but Google keeps walking away with both its ill-gotten gains and its empire intact. Without actual structural remedies, antitrust rulings are just inconvenient speed bumps that allow Google to lock down search and ad tech markets today while using that same unchecked power to monopolize tomorrow’s AI frontier.” Exactly so.  The specific obligations Google will face are not yet public, because Brinkema’s explanatory opinion remains under seal. Earlier, Google had proposed making real-time bidding responses from AdX available to rival ad servers, removing Unified Pricing Rules, and accepting a monitoring trustee for a three-year supervision period. None of that will even dent Google’s ad business.   When all’s said and done, Google is still in charge of both its exchange and publisher ad-server operations. I expect the minor changes required won’t amount to a hill of beans. Restoring competition in markets where the company was found to have used its vertically integrated position unlawfully? Give me a break.  Public Knowledge, a free speech and internet advocacy group, described the decision as one that leaves Google’s monopoly power substantially intact.  As Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer said, “The court found that Google illegally acquired and maintained monopolies in publisher ad servers and ad exchanges, and used its control of DFP and AdX to shut out rivals.” He concluded, “Telling a monopolist to do better is not the same as restoring competition.… A finding of liability means little if the remedy leaves the market fundamentally unchanged.” Ya think?  In Google’s last reported quarter, the company reported $81.6 billion in advertising revenue. Next year, when Google is being “punished,” I expect its revenue will be even higher.