Google's Adtech Monopoly Largely Intact After Judge's Ruling, Critics Decry 'Capitulation'
A federal judge declined to break up Google's digital advertising business, opting instead for data sharing and an independent monitor, drawing sharp criticism from tech watchdogs.
Tech watchdogs voiced strong disapproval this week following a federal judge's decision to leave Google's digital advertising monopoly largely intact. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema's ruling, unsealed approximately two weeks after she announced her decision not to force a breakup of Google's ad empire, ordered the company to implement several changes but stopped short of the structural remedies sought by antitrust advocates.
Brinkema's 106-page decision mandates that Google share more data regarding its ad auctions with publishers and appoint an independent antitrust monitor to oversee its business practices. However, the court-ordered changes are to be implemented for a limited six-year period, significantly less than the 15-year term proposed by the Justice Department. Google will also retain control of its "AdX" marketplace, through which it processes real-time online ad sales and collects a 20% fee.
Barry Lynn, director of the Open Markets Institute, characterized the ruling as an "embarrassing capitulation" that allows Google to largely determine its own punishment. "Judge Brinkema’s decision fails the American people and American democracy," Lynn stated.
The judge's decision surprised many in the industry, particularly after her April 2025 ruling that Google's conduct had "substantially harmed" publishers and constituted an illegal monopoly. Brinkema also previously stated that the company had "destroyed" key evidence by deleting employee chat logs.
In her order, Brinkema asserted that the implemented remedies "will be sufficient to effectively pry open to competition the ad tech markets that were injured by Google’s unlawful conduct, and prevent Google from reverting to anticompetitive conduct in these markets." She further stated that the Department of Justice's request for a forced divestiture was "neither realistic nor needed."
This marks the second instance in roughly a year where Google has avoided a forced breakup of its digital operations despite a federal judge finding it illegally dominated a market. In September of the previous year, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled against the DOJ's request to sell off Google's Chrome web browser, even after finding that Google held a monopoly in online search.
Jason Kint, CEO of the trade group Digital Content Next, expressed concern that the remedies in both cases would not significantly alter the landscape for news media, which he stated have been harmed by Google's practices. He added that Google remains free to "leverage its unbridled data harvesting across its services and our lives."
Despite the criticism, Stanley Woodward, the Justice Department's associate attorney general, described Brinkema's ruling as a "significant victory for this Department’s efforts to protect and restore competition," adding that the department would review the opinion to consider its options.
Google's global head of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, stated the company was "very pleased the court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow."