A federal court has declined the Department of Justice’s request to force Google to divest its ad-tech business, preserving the structure of its digital advertising operations. While the DOJ’s push for a structural split was rejected, the judge has approved most of the proposed behavioral changes aimed at curbing anticompetitive practices. The details of those reforms remain sealed as the court works toward a final judgment.
DOJ’s Allegations of Monopoly and Proposed Breakup
In January 2023, the DOJ and a coalition of eight states accused Google of establishing a monopoly over critical segments of the digital ad market. They claimed Google leveraged its advertising technology stack and acquisitions to tilt the playing field against competitors, ultimately driving up ad prices and limiting competition. These claims were backed in 2025 when Judge Brinkema ruled Google had indeed monopolized key components of the market.
Following that ruling, the DOJ sought a sweeping remedy: a court order for Google to spin off its Google Ad Manager business. That structural breakup was one of the most drastic proposals on the table, intended to dismantle Google’s powerful grip on both the supply and demand sides of digital advertising.
Court’s Decision & What Comes Next
The judge has declined to mandate the divestiture of Google’s advertising arm. Instead, most of the remedy leans on behavioral constraints rather than breaking up the business. These reforms—designed to curb unfair leveraging of market power—are now part of a framework that the court has accepted, though the specifics are not public yet.
The text of the court’s official Memorandum Opinion remains under seal, with both Google and the DOJ set to review for redactions over the next 15 days. Within 30 days, both sides are ordered to collaborate on a proposed Final Judgment. Once agreed upon—or decided by the court if no agreement is reached—those measures will become enforceable.
Potential Impacts and Stakes
A forced sale of Google’s ad-tech components might have opened doors for rising players in the space. Companies like Apple, which has been gradually stepping up its advertising efforts—including integrating ads into Apple Maps—were positioned to gain from any divestiture. The behavioral regime instead hinges on ensuring Google doesn’t abuse its control, rather than breaking that control apart.
This decision provides Google relief on the most radical front, allowing it to keep its ad-tech stack intact. But with a behavior-based remedy in place, the company will still face tighter oversight and likely new rules governing its interactions with advertisers and publishers.
The broader legal context matters here. Breaking up a tech monopoly is a rare and heavy-handed tool. Courts tend to prefer structural remedies only when behavioral fixes are deemed insufficient. In this case, the court has concluded that corrective behavioral measures will suffice. Whether those measures have enough teeth to effectively restore competition depends heavily on how the final order is written and enforced.
Analysis: While Google avoided divestiture today, the acceptance of behavioral remedies reflects a compromise. Structural breakup of giants like Google faces high legal and political hurdles. Moving forward, attention will focus on what rules get enforced—these must limit Google’s ability to advantage its own tools, ensure transparency in pricing and bidding, and open up access for rivals. The ultimate test will be whether these behavioral controls bring meaningful change to a marketplace long dominated by a few powerful players, and not just provide a veneer of change.
