Google Escapes Advertising Division Breakup, Yet Judge Advocates for Operational Changes

For many years, the Department of Justice has actively pursued efforts to dismantle Google’s vast advertising operations through two separate antitrust lawsuits. The initial lawsuit, which began in 2020, targeted Google’s stronghold in the search market, while the second, initiated in 2023, scrutinized the company’s advertising technology sector. Both lawsuits alleged that Google’s significant control over the digital advertising arena constituted an unlawful monopoly.

Throughout these cases, the courts have largely sided with the government. A ruling in 2024 confirmed that Google’s search operations, especially its profitable search-ad activities, constituted an illegal monopoly, affirming that the company had indeed “exercised its monopoly power” in both the search marketplace and search advertising. A different court adjudicating the ad-tech case reached a similar conclusion in April of that year.

In the aftermath of the 2024 ruling, Justice Department officials proposed various strategies to dismantle Google’s search functionalities, which included the potential divestiture of its Chrome browser and Android operating system. However, in September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta rejected these divestiture proposals, permitting Google to retain both Chrome and Android. Nonetheless, he mandated that the company end exclusive default-placement agreements and share certain search data with its rivals—actions that Google is currently appealing.

This inclination was recently reiterated. On Wednesday, federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema from the Eastern District of Virginia, who oversaw the ad-tech case, ruled that Google would maintain control of its advertising division. Instead of requiring divestiture, Brinkema directed the tech giant to alter its business practices to more effectively support its competitors. The New York Times observed that the judge’s decision “did not offer specifics” on how Google should execute these modifications.

Judge Brinkema’s written ruling will remain sealed for 14 days while necessary redactions are made. Her conclusion that Google unlawfully sustained its ad-tech operations was reached in April; this latest ruling specifically dealt with the proposed remedies.

As expected, Google viewed the decision as a win. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, remarked 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 noted for its complexity and challenges, particularly for those who are not well-versed in its nuances. A primary focus of the government’s case against Google in the ad-tech sector was the company’s efforts to establish itself as the default search engine on devices globally, which subsequently increased its advertising revenues.

To accomplish this, Google entered into exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, bolstering its status as the default search engine across major segments of the mobile market, as claimed by the government. In addition, Google engaged in revenue-sharing agreements with mobile carriers, whereby the carriers received a share of the ad revenues in return for maintaining Google as the default search engine, further entrenching its dominance in mobile search.