Judge lets Google retain ad-tech business but orders remedies
US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has allowed Google to retain its advertising technology business, rejecting the Justice Department’s request for a breakup. Instead, the judge said Google must alter business practices to favour competitors after finding in April last year that the company had illegally maintained its ad-tech business.
The remedy ruling, issued on Wednesday in the Eastern District of Virginia, does not yet set out specific operational requirements. Brinkema’s full written decision will remain under seal for 14 days so that the parties can make necessary redactions.
A second antitrust remedy stops short of divestiture
The decision follows a separate Justice Department case over Google Search. In 2024, a court found that Google’s search operation, including its search advertising business, was an illegal monopoly and said the company had exercised monopoly power in search and search ads.
Judge Amit Mehta rejected proposed divestitures of Chrome and Android in September 2025. He nevertheless ordered Google to end exclusive default-placement agreements and to share certain search data with competitors. Google is appealing those remedies.
That outcome provides the immediate context for Brinkema’s ruling. In both matters, courts have accepted key government arguments about illegal monopoly conduct, while declining to order the structural separation sought by the Justice Department.
Default agreements sit at the centre of the dispute
The government’s ad-tech case examined Google’s use of agreements that made its search engine the default on devices. The Justice Department argued that exclusive arrangements with device makers secured default status across large parts of the mobile market, supporting Google’s position in search and advertising.
Google also used revenue-sharing arrangements with mobile carriers, under which carriers received a portion of advertising revenue in return for keeping Google as the default search engine. The cases illustrate how distribution terms can shape competition in services that appear separate to users.
Google presented the latest outcome as a victory. Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president for regulatory affairs, said the court had rejected a proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach customers and grow.
What businesses should watch next
The eventual redacted ruling will be central because the present decision leaves the required changes unspecified. Advertisers, publishers, carriers and technology partners will need to assess whether the measures affect defaults, data access or the operation of advertising tools.
Google’s scale remains relevant beyond advertising: Google’s $920m monthly SpaceX GPU agreement illustrates the company’s wider infrastructure commitments, while the remedy process will determine which competitive changes businesses can actually plan for.
For organisations dependent on Google’s advertising ecosystem, the practical implication is to monitor the final remedy terms and review where default arrangements, data dependencies and supplier concentration affect their own buying and distribution decisions.