Google Sidesteps Split from Advertising Division, Yet Judge Urges Operational Reforms

For years, the Department of Justice has been actively pursuing the dismantling of Google’s vast advertising operations through two separate antitrust lawsuits. The initial lawsuit, which began in 2020, targeted Google’s supremacy in the search market, while the second, started in 2023, focused on the company’s ad-tech sector. Both lawsuits contended that Google’s significant influence over the digital advertising ecosystem amounted to an illegal monopoly.

In these cases, the courts have generally sided with the government. A ruling in 2024 determined that Google’s search activities, particularly its profitable search-ad operations, constituted an illegal monopoly, confirming that the company had “exercised its monopoly power” in both the search market and search advertising. A separate court, which dealt with the ad-tech lawsuit, reached a similar verdict in April of the same year.

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

This trend was reiterated recently. On Wednesday, federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema from the Eastern District of Virginia, who oversaw the ad-tech case, ruled that Google will continue to operate its advertising division. Instead of requiring divestiture, Brinkema instructed the tech giant to alter its business practices to better accommodate competitors. The New York Times highlighted that the judge’s ruling “did not provide specifics” on how Google should execute these changes.

Judge Brinkema’s written decision will remain confidential for 14 days pending necessary redactions. Her finding that Google unlawfully maintained its ad-tech operations originated in April; this recent ruling specifically addressed the recommended remedies.

As expected, Google hailed the decision as a success. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, told 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 known for its complexity and challenges, especially for those unacquainted with its details. A significant part of the government’s case against Google in the ad-tech arena revolved around the company’s efforts to position itself as the default search engine on devices around the globe, which subsequently increased its advertising revenue.

To facilitate this, Google established exclusive agreements with device manufacturers, solidifying its status as the default search engine across major segments of the mobile market, as asserted by the government. Additionally, Google struck revenue-sharing agreements with mobile carriers, whereby the carriers received a portion of the ad revenues in exchange for maintaining Google as the default search engine, further reinforcing its dominance in mobile search.