Judge Brinkema Rejects DOJ's Google Ad Tech Divestiture

• U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the Department of Justice's proposal to break up Google's ad tech business, including the divestiture of AdX.
• This decision follows a prior ruling by the same court that Google violated antitrust laws through its ad tech practices, harming publishers and consumers.
• The court accepted most behavioral remedies, with attorneys for Google and the DOJ now tasked to finalize a joint judgment within 30 days.
• Google's Vice President for Regulatory Affairs expressed satisfaction with the court's decision to not separate its ad tech tools.
• This outcome mirrors a previous antitrust case where a federal judge also denied the DOJ's request for Google's divestment in a search engine case.

The decision underscores the significant hurdles faced by antitrust enforcers in securing structural remedies, such as divestiture, even after a judicial determination of monopolistic behavior.

A federal judge has rejected the Department of Justice's (DOJ) proposals for structural remedies aimed at breaking up Google's lucrative ad technology business, despite a prior finding that the tech giant violated antitrust laws. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, presiding in Alexandria, Virginia, specifically denied calls for the divestiture of key programs, including Google's ad exchange, AdX, and a proposal to open-source the final auction logic for DoubleClick for Publishers. This decision marks a significant development in the ongoing US v Google ad tech lawsuit, where prosecutors had argued these programs enabled Google to maintain an ad-tech monopoly.

The court's reasoning for rejecting the Google ad tech divestiture was contained within a sealed memorandum, which is set to remain confidential for 14 days. However, a brief public order indicated that Judge Brinkema did accept proposals for most of the behavioral remedies, albeit "as modified by this court." Google's Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating the company was "very pleased the court the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow."

This outcome signals the difficulty of achieving structural remedies like divestiture in antitrust cases, even after a finding of violation. The rejection of the Google AdX breakup and other structural changes means the focus will now shift to the implementation and effectiveness of the behavioral remedies accepted by the court.

The recent decision on remedies follows a lengthy legal battle where Google was indeed found to have engaged in monopolistic practices. The initial liability phase of the government's monopoly case against Google concluded with a trial in September 2024. This led to an April 2025 order from Judge Brinkema, which determined that Google's conduct had "substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web."

Judge Brinkema's earlier ruling established that Google's control over various tech tools allowed it to exert monopolistic power within the advertising industry, thereby violating the nation's antitrust laws. The subsequent remedies phase, which saw the DOJ and Google submitting competing proposals, took place in September 2025. It was during this phase that the Department of Justice pushed for the significant structural changes, including the Google AdX breakup, that have now been denied.

The ruling against a Google ad tech divestiture comes amidst a dynamic and evolving digital advertising landscape, where artificial intelligence is increasingly prominent. The decision also has broader implications, as rival companies are actively seeking damages based on the court's prior finding of Google's antitrust violations. For instance, ad tech firm PubMatic initiated a lawsuit against Google in 2025, demanding over $1 billion in damages and alleging that Google's actions impeded its success.

Furthermore, Google faces similar scrutiny internationally. European regulators previously imposed a substantial $3.2 billion fine on the company, citing accusations of abusing its dominance in digital advertising technology. This pattern of antitrust challenges extends beyond ad tech; in a separate case concerning its search engine, a federal judge also rejected the DOJ's request to order the divestment of Google, underscoring a consistent judicial reluctance to impose such severe structural remedies on the tech giant.

With the rejection of structural remedies, the focus now squarely falls on the Google antitrust behavioral remedies accepted by Judge Leonie Brinkema. Attorneys for both the DOJ and Google are mandated to confer within 30 days to file a jointly proposed final judgment. This judgment must reflect the decisions and modifications outlined in the accompanying sealed memorandum and resolve any remaining disputed issues.

The court's order also acknowledges the potential for further briefings or oral arguments should the attorneys fail to reach an agreement on the final judgment. Judge Brinkema had previously noted during final arguments late last year that Google would likely appeal any significant order, a factor that could potentially delay the implementation of any remedies. This ongoing process highlights the complex and protracted nature of antitrust litigation against major tech companies.

This ruling signals the difficulty of achieving structural remedies like divestiture in antitrust cases, even after a finding of violation. Lawyers advising ad tech companies or those competing with Google should focus on the forthcoming behavioral remedies and their impact on market conduct, rather than anticipating a breakup of Google's ad tech business.

Source: Original reporting via The Associated Press and Courthouse News Service.