Google avoids ad tech breakup in antitrust ruling
On September 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, sitting in Alexandria, Virginia, rejected the Department of Justice's request to break up Google's advertising technology business. The ruling followed her April 2025 finding that Google illegally maintained monopolies over its publisher ad server and its ad exchange, the tools that sit between website publishers and advertisers. The DOJ had asked the court to force Google to divest AdX, its ad exchange, and Google Ad Manager, its publisher-side tool, arguing that structural separation was needed to restore competition after the monopoly finding.
Brinkema declined the divestiture. Instead she ordered behavioral remedies, adopting most of the changes that both the DOJ and Google had proposed for how Google runs its ad tech business. She also rejected a DOJ request that Google publicly release the source code behind its publisher tools. The specific terms of the remedies remain sealed inside a memorandum opinion; the parties have 15 days to request redactions before any public release, and Google and the DOJ then have 30 days to jointly draft a final judgment implementing the order.
Both sides claimed a partial win. A Department of Justice spokesperson said the Antitrust Division 'is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief in the Google Ad Tech case' and that the department is evaluating next steps. Google's Lee-Anne Mulholland said the company was pleased the court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach customers. The underlying case, filed by the DOJ in January 2023, had alleged that Google used acquisitions and control of its ad tech stack to disadvantage competitors on both the buy side and the sell side of digital advertising, letting it raise ad prices while limiting rivals' ability to compete.
The outcome is the latest instance of a U.S. antitrust enforcer winning a liability finding against a major technology company but failing to secure a structural breakup as the remedy, echoing the result in Google's separate search-monopoly case.
Key facts
- On September 2, 2026, Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the DOJ's request to force Google to divest AdX and Google Ad Manager.
- The ruling follows her April 2025 finding that Google illegally monopolized the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets.
- Brinkema ordered behavioral remedies instead of a breakup, adopting most of what both the DOJ and Google had proposed; the details are sealed pending a 15 day redaction window.
- Google and the DOJ have 30 days to jointly propose a final judgment; the DOJ says it is evaluating next steps.
- The DOJ's original suit, filed in January 2023, alleged Google used its ad tech stack to disadvantage competitors on both the buyer and seller sides of digital advertising.
Why it matters
This is the second time a court has found Google liable for illegally monopolizing a market but stopped short of ordering the structural breakup the government sought, following a similar outcome in Google's search-monopoly case. It signals that U.S. courts remain willing to find antitrust liability against Big Tech while still preferring behavioral fixes over splitting a company apart, and it keeps Google's ad exchange and publisher tools under one roof.
Who it affects
Publishers that rely on Google Ad Manager and advertisers that bid through AdX keep dealing with one integrated Google stack rather than separated companies. The Department of Justice, which built its remedy case around forced divestiture, gets a set of behavioral commitments instead. Rival ad tech vendors that hoped a breakup would open up market share do not get that opening, at least for now.
How to use it
There is nothing to license or buy here; the practical question is compliance, not adoption. The actual behavioral remedies Google must follow are not yet public: they sit inside a sealed memorandum opinion, with a 15 day window for redaction requests, followed by 30 days for Google and the DOJ to jointly propose a final judgment. Anyone tracking how Google's ad auctions and publisher tools may change should watch for that final judgment rather than this ruling alone.
How solid is it
The New York Times article behind this story returned an HTTP 403 and could not be fetched directly. The account here is built from independent reporting by AppleInsider, TheWrap and Yahoo Finance, which agree on the judge's name, the date, the rejected and granted remedies, and the quotes from both the DOJ and Google, so the core facts are corroborated across multiple outlets even though the originating article itself was inaccessible.
Risks and caveats
The exact content of the ordered behavioral remedies is still sealed, so how much they will actually change Google's ad tech practices cannot yet be assessed. Sources disagree on one detail not included above: whether the court retained authority to order a future divestiture if competition fails to improve. Whether the DOJ will appeal has not been announced.
“We're very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.”
— Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google