Google Averted Split from Advertising Operations, but Judge Requires Operational Adjustments

For several years, the Department of Justice has been striving to dismantle Google’s vast advertising operations through two separate antitrust lawsuits. The first lawsuit, launched in 2020, concentrated on Google’s control of the search market, while the second, initiated in 2023, specifically targeted Google’s ad-tech division. Both cases asserted that the company’s substantial influence over the digital advertising sphere constituted an illegal monopoly.

Court rulings have predominantly favored the government in these cases. In 2024, a court determined that Google’s search activities, particularly its profitable search-ad operations, amounted to an illegal monopoly, claiming the company had “exercised its monopoly power” in both the search market and search advertisements. A separate court handling the ad-tech case arrived at a similar conclusion in April of that year.

Following the ruling in 2024, Justice Department officials proposed various strategies aimed at dismantling Google’s search operations, which included the potential sale of its Chrome browser and Android operating system. However, in September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta rejected these divestment suggestions, allowing Google to retain both Chrome and Android. Nonetheless, he directed the company to end exclusive default-placement contracts and to share specific search data with its competitors—decisions that Google is currently disputing.

This trend was further reinforced recently. On Wednesday, federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema from the Eastern District of Virginia, who oversaw the ad-tech case, ruled that Google would retain its advertising division. Rather than divesting, Brinkema mandated that the tech giant alter its business practices to benefit its competitors. The New York Times noted that the judge’s ruling “did not provide specifics” regarding how Google should implement these adjustments.

Judge Brinkema’s written decision will remain classified for 14 days for necessary redactions. Her finding that Google acted unlawfully in maintaining its ad-tech operations dates back to April; this recent ruling specifically addressed the proposed remedies.

As expected, Google heralded the decision as a triumph. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, communicated to TechCrunch: “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to dismantle tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.”

The online advertising industry is recognized as intricate and challenging for those who are not familiar with its nuances. Much of the government’s case against Google in the ad-tech arena focused on the company’s efforts to become the default search engine on devices internationally, which in turn bolstered its advertising revenue.

To accomplish this, Google established exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, positioning itself as the default search engine across key segments of the mobile market, as asserted by the government. Additionally, Google entered into revenue-sharing arrangements with mobile carriers, whereby the carriers received a share of ad revenues in exchange for maintaining Google as the default search engine, further solidifying its dominance in the mobile search landscape.