The U.S. Department of Justice spent years trying to break up Google's massive advertising business through two separate antitrust cases: the first filed in 2020, focused on Google's dominance in the search market, and the second filed in 2023, specifically targeting the company's ad tech business.
اضافة اعلان
Both cases argued that the search giant's control over the digital advertising economy constituted illegal monopolization.
Courts largely sided with the government in both cases. In 2024, a court ruled that Google's search business, including its highly profitable search-related advertising operations, constituted an illegal monopoly, finding that the company had "exercised monopoly power" to dominate the search and search advertising sector.
Last April, a second court, in a case specifically focused on Google's ad tech business, reached the same conclusion.
Following the 2024 ruling, Justice Department officials proposed several options for breaking up parts of Google's search business, including forcing the company to divest its Chrome browser and Android operating system.
But in September 2025, the judge overseeing the case, Amit Mehta, rejected demands to separate these operations, ruling that Google could keep both Chrome and Android.
Nevertheless, he ordered the company to end exclusive agreements that made its services the default choice, in addition to sharing some search data with competitors, measures Google is still challenging.
The same pattern repeated this week.
In a ruling issued Wednesday, Federal Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, who oversaw the ad tech case, said Google could keep its advertising business rather than being forced to sell it.
However, the judge made clear the company will have to modify its business practices in ways that give competitors better opportunities.
According to the New York Times, the ruling did not include specific details on how Google must implement these changes.
Brinkema's full written ruling will remain sealed for 14 days, to give the involved parties time to make necessary redactions before it's published.
The judge had concluded last April that Google acted illegally to maintain its dominance over the ad tech business, while this week's ruling was limited to determining the required remedial measures.
As expected, Google presented the outcome as a win for itself.
Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, told TechCrunch that the company was pleased the court rejected the Justice Department's proposal to break up the tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.
The complex system of online advertising is known for being opaque and highly intertwined, making it difficult for most non-specialists to understand how it works.
Much of the government's case against Google over ad tech focused on the methods the company used to ensure its search engine remained the default option on devices worldwide, which in turn helped strengthen its advertising business's dominance.
According to the government, Google used exclusive agreements with device manufacturers that made its search engine the default option on a large share of mobile phones.
Google also entered into revenue-sharing agreements with mobile network operators, under which those companies received a share of advertising revenue in exchange for keeping Google as the default search engine.
These agreements, according to the government, helped cement Google's position as the de facto dominant search engine in mobile markets.
