Google Keeps Ad Business but Must Change How It Operates

The judge overseeing Google’s ad-tech antitrust case ruled this week that the company would not face a forced sale of its advertising business. Instead, Google must modify how it operates to allow competitors to access the market more freely.

Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia issued the ruling on Wednesday, following earlier findings from April 2024 that Google had acted illegally to maintain its dominance in ad-technology. The decision continues a pattern set by another judge in the search monopoly case, where structural remedies such as selling off Chrome and Android were rejected in favor of operational restrictions.

Google called the outcome favorable. Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president for regulatory affairs, told TechCrunch: “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.” The Justice Department had sought to force Google to divest its ad-tech operations as punishment for the illegal monopoly.

Rejection of Divestiture, Behavioral Remedies Instead

Brinkema stopped short of ordering Google to sell its advertising business to a separate entity. Instead, she determined that the company should remain intact but modify its practices to reduce competitive harm.

The judge’s decision to reject divestiture parallels an earlier ruling from Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over the search monopoly case. In that case, the Justice Department had requested that Google divest Chrome and Android. Mehta declined to order those sales in September 2025, instead imposing conduct remedies: Google must end exclusive default-placement agreements and share certain search data with rivals.

Brinkema’s ruling does not yet specify exactly how Google must adjust its business model. The full written decision will remain sealed for 14 days to permit necessary redactions, leaving the details of what adjusting practices to favor competitors means still largely undefined.

How Google Built Its Advertising Dominance

Read also: Grindr’s Gamble on Healthcare, Travel, and Premium AI Features · U.S. Tariffs Push China’s Robot Dominance Elsewhere · Meta Settles $18B Child Safety Lawsuit on Unproven Age-Verification Tech

Google’s grip on digital advertising stems from its ability to control what search engine appears on devices worldwide. The Justice Department’s case, filed in 2023, argued that this monopoly in search translated directly into illegal control over the ad-tech market.

Device Manufacturer Agreements

Google paid device manufacturers—smartphone makers, tablet producers, and other hardware companies—to make Google Search the default option. These exclusive agreements locked out competitors from a massive portion of the market: anyone purchasing a device without explicitly changing settings would use Google’s search engine and, by extension, Google’s advertising platform. This strategy ensured that as smartphones and mobile devices proliferated, Google’s ad network expanded with them.

Mobile Carrier Revenue Sharing

Google also established deals with mobile carriers where carriers earned a percentage of ad revenue in exchange for maintaining Google as the default search engine. This arrangement created financial incentives for carriers to keep Google in place, further cementing its position across mobile networks. Carriers became stakeholders in Google’s continued dominance rather than potential allies of competitors.

Integrated Control of Advertising Supply

Together, these practices ensured that Google’s search business remained dominant, which in turn allowed its ad-tech platform to control a disproportionate share of digital advertising. A competitor offering an alternative search engine or ad network had little chance of gaining access to the same volume of users and therefore the same advertising inventory. Google’s control extended across the entire supply chain, from device defaults to carrier arrangements to the auction platforms themselves.

Search Monopoly Ruling Sets Precedent

Brinkema’s decision builds on the outcome of the separate search monopoly case, which concluded in 2024. In that ruling, Judge Amit Mehta found that Google had exercised its monopoly power to dominate search and search advertising, violating antitrust law.

The Justice Department had proposed multiple remedies, including the sale of Chrome and Android. These assets represent billions of dollars in value and would have fundamentally reshaped Google’s business. Mehta rejected these proposals in September 2025, deciding instead that behavioral restrictions were a more appropriate remedy.

Google must end exclusive default-placement agreements with device makers and carriers. The company is also required to share certain search data with competitors to level the playing field. Google is currently appealing these requirements, indicating the company views them as onerous restrictions on its business model.

Specifics of Required Changes Remain Vague

Brinkema ordered Google to adjust its practices to favor competitors, but the specifics remain vague. The judge’s ruling did not provide specifics as to how Google should implement these changes, according to reporting on the decision. This ambiguity creates uncertainty across multiple stakeholders.

Competitors do not yet know what level of access to data or placement Google will be forced to provide. Google does not know exactly which of its current practices it must abandon or modify. Advertisers and publishers also face uncertainty about how Google’s business model might change and whether that creates new opportunities or disruptions.

The full written ruling will clarify some of these details once the 14-day sealing period expires and redactions are removed. Until then, both the company and the market await specifics on what behavioral changes the judge intends.

Google Declares Victory While Facing Limits

Google moved quickly to characterize the ruling as a win for its business. Lee-Anne Mulholland emphasized that the court rejected the government’s proposal to break apart advertising tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow. The framing reflects Google’s position throughout the cases: the company’s integrated advertising products benefit publishers, advertisers, and consumers.

Breaking up Google’s advertising business would disrupt those relationships and eliminate efficiencies, the company has argued. By rejecting divestiture, Brinkema sided with Google on this structural question. Whether the behavioral remedies eventually ordered will address the competitive concerns that justified the monopoly finding remains an open question that will likely unfold over months or years.

Behavioral Versus Structural Remedies in Tech Antitrust

These two cases represent the most significant antitrust action against Google in its history. The first case, filed in 2020, targeted the search business specifically. The second, filed in 2023, expanded the focus to ad-tech operations. Courts have agreed with the government’s core argument in both: Google maintains illegal monopolies in these markets.

Where judges have diverged is on remedy. Rather than structural separation, Brinkema and Mehta have both opted for conduct restrictions, allowing Google to remain intact while limiting how it operates. This approach differs from historical antitrust precedents in technology. The breakup of AT&T in the 1980s fundamentally restructured the telecommunications industry. These rulings keep Google whole while constraining its behavior—an experiment in behavioral antitrust that will determine whether competition can be restored without dismantling the company.