Google has dodged a compulsory split of its advertising tech arm, after a U.S. federal judge opted for behavioral remedies rather than mandating it sell its AdX ad exchange. The ruling is another blow to the efforts by U.S. antitrust officials to force structural changes in the business practices of big tech firms.
Google was denied by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of Alexandria, Virginia, the right to be forced to sell off AdX. The advertising exchange is a vital component of the digital advertising system, bridging the gap between publishers who sell ads and those who buy them. Google charges a commission on all transactions done via the exchange.
The ruling comes as part of a larger lawsuit against Google’s dominance in the online advertising industry. In 2023, the Justice Department and several U.S. states filed a lawsuit against Google, asserting that it had employed its advertising technology dominance to block competition and bolster its influence over key components of the digital advertising market.
The case is about a technology that is largely invisible behind the scenes when ads are sold and bought online. Advertisers can use ad servers to manage their ad space, and ad exchanges can match buyers and sellers through automatic auctions. The auctions can occur within seconds after someone opens a web page.
In April 2025, Brinkema discovered that Google was unlawfully holding monopolies in segments of the advertising tech industry. The court also ruled that Google had unethically attached its publisher advertising server to its AdX exchange, providing it an edge over its rivals. Those findings paved the way to a much more aggressive way of combating Google’s advertising business.
The Justice Department then claimed it wasn’t enough to just ask Google to modify its actions. However, government attorneys argued that Google should not be trusted to run a fair exchange after it was determined it had conducted itself in an anticompetitive way, so AdX needed to be sold.
The judge actually went with another plan. She didn’t demand the divestiture but instead agreed to behavioral remedies that impose new limits on Google. The measures aim to improve the transparency and opportunities of competing companies in the advertising market.
Google had suggested a number of changes of its own, such as giving competitors access to real-time bidding data. This might help other advertising technology companies to offer a similar service without forcing Google to carve out its ad business from AdX.
Brinkema is expected to release a more detailed ruling, which will provide more insight into the court’s reasoning. The judge would have made that decision after giving the parties time to consider confidential information and remove redactions.
Google avoids one of the most disruptive consequences that could have come from the antitrust case. But AdX is a key element of the digital advertising ecosystem, and it is a relatively small part of Google’s business. Many of those things might have been different, however, had Google been forced to sell what might have changed its business of advertising technology and competition among all online advertisers.
Google was pleased with the judgment, stating that if its advertising tools were split, it could have a negative impact on businesses relying on digital advertising to connect with customers. “It’s great the Court did not approve of the DOJ’s plan to sever tools for small business to connect and expand their customer base,” Executive Lee-Anne Mulholland said.
The Justice Department also suggested the ruling was a significant move toward combating Google’s market power, despite its failure to get Google to be split up. The department said in a post on social media that it is “one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets. The Department is evaluating appropriate next steps.
The differing responses reveal the main controversy in the case. Google says its advertising tech supports publishers and companies in the digital economy, whereas U.S. regulators believe the company has too much influence on several interrelated advertising tech products to make it hard for competitors to have a meaningful impact.
The decision also has implications for Google’s advertising operations. The latest in U.S. antitrust efforts to go to court against the giant tech firms. Regulators have been increasingly calling for tougher regulation of the size and influence of Big Tech firms, while tech firms have generally expressed concern about the potential impact of strong structural remedies on the services they provide to consumers and businesses.
Google has now been targeted by antitrust authorities in several aspects of its activities. Separate courts have ruled that the company has engaged in anti-competitive practices in different markets, but it has not been able to get the harshest punishment: the removal of big chunks of Google.
This is especially significant because the U.S. government has taken on big antitrust lawsuits against other tech giants. Amazon and Apple antitrust cases are still included in the larger effort to consider if any technology platforms are leveraging their market power to stifle competition. Those cases will not be concluded until the court decides, so it remains to be seen if the Regulators will eventually be able to get better structural relief from Big Tech.
The debate is not confined to the legal niceties. The majority of the Internet relies on digital advertising for a significant share of its profits. Advertising systems serve to support publishers’ websites and online services, and to help businesses to advertise to potential customers. Given that Google has a stake in a number of components of this system, there have been concerns that the company’s ability to fairly compete in this market comes with the risk of it also owning key infrastructure in it.
