A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Google to make changes to the system underpinning its monopoly in digital advertising, but stopped short of ordering the breakup sought by the US government.
The initial two-page ruling by US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia marks the second time in a year that Google has avoided a Justice Department proposal aimed at dismantling parts of its internet business. Meanwhile, practices that courts have found to be anti-competitive have helped enrich Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc., which has a market value of $4.11 trillion.
Brinkema's full opinion, including details of the remedies, will remain sealed for 14 days to allow both sides to review it and suggest any necessary redactions.
“We're very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president for regulatory affairs.
After a judge ruled in 2024 that Google's widely used search engine constituted an illegal monopoly, the Justice Department sought remedies that would have required the company to sell its popular Chrome web browser. That proposal was rejected last September by another federal judge overseeing the case.
Brinkema has now similarly rejected the government's argument that Google should be required to sell parts of the technology behind a complex advertising system that generates a significant share of the company's nearly $400 billion in annual advertising revenue.
Critics of major technology companies condemned the decision.
“It takes an Olympic level of mental gymnastics to find that Google is operating an illegal monopoly and then decide to do nothing about it,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project.
“With Big Tech continuing to suffocate new and innovative businesses from gaining traction, Judge Brinkema, like (US District Judge Amit) Mehta before her, is sending the wrong message at the wrong time,” Haworth said.
Brinkema's approach contrasts with the position strongly opposed by the Justice Department last November, when she heard closing arguments in the trial's remedies phase.
The ad-tech case began with the government's antitrust lawsuit filed in 2023, which resulted last year in a ruling that Google had illegally maintained a monopoly.
Justice Department lawyers warned Brinkema in court filings that allowing Google to retain all of its advertising technology would still enable the company to “manipulate computer algorithms that are the engine of its monopolies in ways too difficult to detect.”
Google argued in response that breaking up the complex network would be unnecessarily harsh. The system distributes advertisements that online publishers rely on to help finance digital services used by millions of consumers.
The advertising exchange technology at the center of the case processes an estimated 55 million requests per second, according to figures submitted by Google in court filings.
“This is technology that absolutely has to keep working for consumers,” Google said ahead of Brinkema's ruling.
In her decision, Brinkema said she had agreed to most of the remedies proposed by both sides.
Although the changes could potentially reduce Google's revenue or slow its future growth, the ruling is likely to be viewed by many investors as little more than a speed bump for a company that has recently benefited from the rapid growth of artificial intelligence technology.
A similar investor reaction followed the penalties imposed by US District Judge Amit Mehta in the search monopoly case. Since Mehta's ruling in Washington, D.C., Alphabet's stock price has climbed 45%, creating an additional $1.3 trillion in shareholder wealth.