Judge Spares Google from Breakup of Ad-Tech Business, Orders Practice Changes

The decision, handed down by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, addresses only the remedy phase of the ad-tech case. In April 2026, the court found that Google had illegally monopolised the ad-tech market. The DOJ had sought to break up the business, but the judge ordered changes to how Google operates rather than a sale.

Judge Brinkema's full written ruling will remain under seal for 14 days to allow for redactions. The New York Times notes that the ruling did not provide specifics on what changes Google must make.

The case is one of two major antitrust actions against Google. In 2024, a court ruled that Google's search business — including its lucrative search-ad operation — was an illegal monopoly. Judge Amit Mehta rejected calls to force the sale of Chrome and Android in September 2025, instead ordering Google to end exclusive default-placement deals and share certain search data with competitors. Google is appealing that remedy.

In the ad-tech case, the government argued that Google used exclusive agreements with device manufacturers and revenue-sharing deals with mobile carriers to cement its dominance. Google has denied wrongdoing.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, said the company is pleased that the court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.

Why This Matters

Impact on digital advertising: Google's ad-tech business controls a significant portion of the online ad market. The ruling preserves its structure but requires operational changes that could reshape how ads are bought and sold.
Precedent for antitrust enforcement: This is the second major antitrust case where a court has rejected a breakup remedy, signalling limits on structural remedies in tech monopoly cases.
What happens next: The specifics of the ordered changes are unknown until the ruling is unsealed. Google may appeal, as it is already doing in the search case.

Background

The DOJ sued Google twice: once in 2020 over search dominance, and again in 2023 over ad-tech. Both resulted in findings of illegal monopolisation. In the search case, a 2024 ruling was followed by a September 2025 remedy order that let Google keep Chrome and Android but required changes to default deals and data sharing. The ad-tech remedy ruling this week follows the same pattern: Google keeps the business but must alter its practices.

Key Perspectives

Google: The company sees the ruling as a victory, arguing that a breakup would have harmed small businesses that rely on its ad tools. Justice Department: The government argued that only a structural breakup could restore competition. Its proposal was rejected. Critics and Competitors: Some observers worry that requiring practice changes without specifics may not be enough to dismantle Google's market power. Competitors may push for stronger remedies as the case proceeds.

What to Watch

Unsealed ruling: The full decision, expected in 14 days, will reveal what specific changes Google must make.
Google's compliance: How the company implements the ordered changes and whether they meaningfully open the market.
Appeal timeline: Google is already appealing the search remedy; a similar appeal in the ad-tech case is likely.

ZOTPAPER