Google Escapes Split from Ad Business, Yet Judge Requires Operational Changes

For many years, the Justice Department has been striving to break down Google’s vast advertising operations through two separate antitrust lawsuits. The initial lawsuit, launched in 2020, concentrated on Google’s control of the search market, while the subsequent one, started in 2023, specifically addressed Google’s ad-tech sector. Both lawsuits claimed that the company’s substantial power over the digital advertising environment represents an unlawful monopoly.

Court rulings have mostly favored the government in these cases. In 2024, a court found that Google’s search activities, particularly its profitable search-ad operations, constituted an illegal monopoly, asserting that the company had “exercised its monopoly power” over both the search market and search advertisements. Another court handling the ad-tech case arrived at a similar conclusion in April of that year.

After the 2024 ruling, Justice Department officials proposed various approaches to dismantle 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 keep both Chrome and Android. Still, he ordered the company to end exclusive default-placement agreements and to share certain search data with competitors—actions that Google is currently appealing.

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

Judge Brinkema’s written decision will remain secret for 14 days for necessary redactions. Her finding that Google acted unlawfully in maintaining its ad-tech operations dates back to April of the previous year; this latest ruling focused exclusively on the suggested remedies.

As expected, Google celebrated the outcome as a win. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, expressed to TechCrunch: “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to dismantle tools that help small businesses in reaching new customers and expanding.”

The online advertising industry is notoriously intricate and challenging for those unacquainted with its details. Much of the government’s case against Google in the ad-tech realm revolved around the company’s attempts to establish itself as the default search engine on devices globally, which subsequently enhanced its advertising business.

To achieve this, Google established exclusive agreements with device manufacturers that positioned it as the default search engine across significant segments of the mobile market, as argued by the government. Additionally, Google entered into revenue-sharing agreements with mobile carriers, where carriers received a percentage of ad revenue in exchange for keeping Google as the default search engine, thereby solidifying its dominance in the mobile search market.