A federal judge is facing significant backlash for deciding not to force Google to break up its digital advertising operations. This comes after she had previously ruled that the tech giant was running two illegal monopolies in the online advertising sector.
On Wednesday, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema dismissed the Justice Department’s bid to compel Google to divest its “AdX” marketplace, from which it has been known to take a 20% commission on real-time online ad sales. This decision follows her April 2025 ruling, in which she stated Google’s practices “substantially harmed” publishers and highlighted that the company had “destroyed” key evidence.
“It’s quite a stretch to deem Google an illegal monopoly and yet take no action,” remarked Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project.
Judge Brinkema instructed Google, under the leadership of CEO Sundar Pichai, to implement most of the proposed behavioral remedies suggested by the DOJ and several states involved in the antitrust lawsuit, though she did not specify which remedies should be enacted.
Her complete opinion is set to be released later this month, after both parties review it for any confidential information. Until then, the exact measures to be taken remain unclear.
This ruling marks the second time in just a year that Google has avoided a forced breakup of its online business, despite a federal court ruling that it was illegally dominating a market.
In a different case, last September, US District Judge Amit Mehta also denied the DOJ’s request to make Google sell its Chrome web browser, despite previously labeling the company a “monopolist” in the online search domain.
“Big Tech continues to stifle new and innovative businesses, and Judge Brinkema, much like Judge Mehta before her, delivers a misguided message at a critical time,” Haworth added.
“With the rulings from Judge Brinkema and Judge Mehta, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Congress needs to take action—both for broader structural remedies and to specifically address these markets,” noted Laurel Kilgour, a research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project.
The judge also turned down a request from the DOJ and the coalition of states to make public the source code that manages AdX.
In a statement, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, expressed satisfaction that the court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to dismantle tools that assist small businesses in reaching new customers.
On the other hand, the Justice Department’s antitrust division stated it was pleased the court granted substantial relief regarding Google’s monopoly, even as it rejected the divestiture proposal.
“The Department remains committed to advocating for fair competition,” said Stanley Woodward, the DOJ’s Associate Attorney General. “The court’s order timing reflects the balance between immediate remedies and those acquired through lengthy litigation.”
In her April 2025 ruling, Brinkema found that Google had violated the Sherman Act by monopolizing the online publisher ad server market and the ad-exchange market linking ad buyers with sellers.
“Google reinforced its monopoly power by engaging in anticompetitive practices toward its customers and removing beneficial product features,” she noted.
Before the trial, Brinkema expressed frustration over Google’s practice of having employees disable chat history by default—referred to internally as “Vegas mode”—despite the legal obligation to preserve evidence pertinent to the case.
During a court hearing on August 29, 2024, she described Google’s actions as a “clear abuse of privilege” and indicated that a considerable amount of evidence had likely been lost.
