Alphabet-owned Google has avoided a forced breakup of its advertising technology business after a US federal judge rejected the Department of Justice’s demand that the company sell its AdX advertising exchange.
The ruling marks the third recent case in which US antitrust authorities have sought to break up a major technology company but failed to secure the strongest structural remedy.
US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, instead accepted behavioural remedies designed to address Google’s anticompetitive conduct in the online advertising market. A detailed ruling is expected after confidential information is redacted.
The US Department of Justice had argued that Google should be required to sell AdX, its advertising exchange connecting publishers and advertisers.
The DOJ’s position followed Judge Brinkema’s earlier finding that Google had illegally maintained monopolies in parts of the online advertising technology market.
However, the judge declined to order a divestiture of AdX. Google had proposed measures including giving competitors greater access to real-time bidding information.
The DOJ welcomed the substantial remedies ordered by the court but said it was evaluating its next steps.
Google, meanwhile, said it was pleased that the court rejected the proposed breakup.
The DOJ and a coalition of US states sued Google in 2023, accusing the company of unlawfully dominating key advertising technology markets used by publishers and websites.
In April 2025, Brinkema ruled that Google held illegal monopolies involving publisher ad servers and advertising exchanges.
The court also found that Google had unlawfully tied publishers using its ad server to its AdX advertising exchange.
The government subsequently argued that Google’s past conduct meant the company could not be trusted to continue operating AdX without a structural change.
Google countered that forcing a sale would be technically complicated and could create a lengthy transition that would ultimately harm customers.
The advertising technology business targeted in the case represents a relatively small portion of Google’s overall operations.
According to Wedbush research and analysis of court documents cited in the report, Google Ad Manager accounted for 4.1% of Google’s overall revenue and 1.5% of operating profit in 2020. More recent figures in court documents were redacted.
Google shares were up about 0.6% following the ruling, although the stock pared some of its earlier gains.
The decision adds to a series of setbacks for US antitrust authorities seeking to impose structural breakups on dominant technology companies.
A federal judge previously rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to force Meta to sell Instagram and WhatsApp, ruling that the agency had not established that Meta currently holds a monopoly in social media.
The FTC has appealed that decision.
Another US judge who found Google liable for maintaining an illegal monopoly in online search also rejected the DOJ’s request to force Google to sell its Chrome browser. The court cited changing competitive conditions, including the growing influence of generative artificial intelligence.
The decision highlights the difficulty of using traditional antitrust remedies against technology companies whose businesses span interconnected platforms and services.
While courts have found anticompetitive conduct in several major technology markets, judges have so far been reluctant to impose the most aggressive remedy — forcing companies to sell major assets.
The latest ruling therefore leaves behavioural restrictions at the centre of the government’s efforts to address Google’s position in digital advertising.
The DOJ said the case had moved closer to restoring competition in online advertising markets, while advocacy groups argued that the repeated rejection of structural breakups showed the limitations of relying solely on courts to curb Big Tech’s market power.
