By Titik Puspa 
The United States Department of Justice has, for years, waged a formidable legal battle against Google, seeking to dismantle its colossal digital advertising business through two high-profile antitrust lawsuits. These protracted legal skirmishes, initiated in 2020 and 2023 respectively, have centered on the Justice Department’s assertion that Google’s pervasive influence over the digital ad economy constitutes an illegal monopoly. The initial suit targeted Google’s dominance in search, while the subsequent action zeroed in on its intricate ad-technology operations. Despite the government’s persistent efforts, the path to a structural breakup of Google’s advertising empire has proven more complex than anticipated, with courts, while largely siding with the government on the illegality of certain practices, ultimately opting for less drastic remedies.
The legal groundwork for these challenges was laid with significant judicial validation. In 2024, a federal court definitively ruled that Google’s search business, encompassing its extraordinarily lucrative search advertising operations, indeed operated as an illegal monopoly. The court’s finding, articulated with stark clarity, stated that the tech titan had "exercised its monopoly power" to cement its control over both the search industry and the associated advertising market. This pivotal 2024 ruling was a major victory for the Justice Department, signaling a judicial acknowledgment of Google’s monopolistic tendencies. Building on this momentum, a second crucial court case, initiated in April of the same year and specifically dissecting Google’s ad-technology business, echoed the sentiment of the first, reaching an identical conclusion: Google’s practices in this domain were also deemed to be in violation of antitrust laws.
Following the 2024 ruling concerning Google’s search business, Justice Department officials explored a range of potential structural remedies, including the radical divestiture of integral components of Google’s ecosystem, such as its ubiquitous Chrome browser and its dominant Android operating system. The rationale behind such proposals was to fundamentally alter Google’s market power by separating its core search engine from these foundational technologies that often funnel users to its services, including its advertising platforms. However, in a significant development in September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over the search case, ultimately rejected these sweeping divestiture requests. The judge ruled that Google could retain ownership of both Chrome and Android. While the structural breakup was denied, the court did impose significant behavioral remedies. Google was mandated to cease its exclusive default-placement deals with device manufacturers and mobile carriers, a practice that had ensured its search engine’s preeminence. Furthermore, the company was ordered to share certain search data with competitors, a move designed to foster a more competitive landscape. Google, predictably, has appealed these remedies, signaling its continued resistance to mandated changes in its business practices.
This pattern of judicial acknowledgment of illegal monopolistic behavior, coupled with a reluctance to impose the most severe structural remedies, persisted this week with the ruling in the ad-tech case. Federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia, overseeing the ad-tech litigation, delivered her verdict on Wednesday, stating that Google would be permitted to retain its advertising business. Instead of a forced sale or divestiture, the search giant will be required to implement significant adjustments to its business practices, aiming to create a more equitable environment for competitors. The specifics of these mandated changes, however, remain notably vague, as noted by The New York Times. Judge Brinkema’s ruling did not provide granular detail on how Google should achieve this recalibration, leaving a degree of ambiguity regarding the precise implementation of the behavioral remedies.
The full written ruling from Judge Brinkema is slated to remain under seal for a period of 14 days, allowing all parties involved to review the document and propose necessary redactions. This period of confidentiality is standard in legal proceedings to protect sensitive business information or personal data. The core finding of illegality in Google’s ad-tech practices dates back to April of the previous year, with this week’s decision solely addressing the appropriate remedy for those established violations. This distinction is crucial: the court found Google guilty of monopolistic conduct in its ad-tech operations, but it opted against a structural breakup as the solution.
Unsurprisingly, Google has framed this outcome as a significant victory. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, articulated the company’s perspective to TechCrunch, stating, "We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow." This statement highlights Google’s narrative that its advertising technologies are essential tools for businesses, and that breaking them up would harm the broader economy. This framing attempts to position Google not as a monopolist, but as a facilitator of economic growth, a narrative that resonates with some segments of the business community.
The intricacies of the online advertising ecosystem are notoriously opaque and byzantine, presenting a significant challenge for public comprehension. For individuals not immersed in its complexities, grasping the nuances of how digital advertising operates and how dominant players exert influence can be exceedingly difficult. Much of the government’s protracted ad-tech case against Google revolved around the company’s sophisticated tactics designed to ensure its search engine, and by extension its advertising services, maintained an unassailable position. A key element of this strategy involved ensuring that Google Search was the default option on a vast array of devices globally. This default status is a powerful driver of user behavior, as most individuals tend to stick with the pre-selected option, thereby generating immense traffic and revenue for Google’s advertising business.
To achieve this pervasive default status, the government has argued that Google employed a multi-pronged approach. A cornerstone of this strategy involved entering into exclusive agreements with device manufacturers. These agreements effectively locked in Google Search as the default search engine across a substantial portion of the mobile phone market, a critical gateway to online activity. Furthermore, Google engaged in sophisticated revenue-sharing agreements with mobile carriers. Under these deals, carriers received a portion of the advertising revenue generated by Google searches originating from their networks in exchange for maintaining Google as the default search engine. These financial incentives further solidified Google’s position as the de facto search engine across a wide spectrum of phone markets, creating a powerful network effect that made it exceedingly difficult for competitors to gain traction.
The government’s argument was that these practices, while perhaps appearing as standard business arrangements, collectively constituted a concerted effort to stifle competition and maintain an illegal monopoly. By controlling the primary gateway to the internet for billions of users – search – Google was able to leverage this dominance to its advantage in the adjacent and highly lucrative digital advertising market. Advertisers, seeking to reach the largest possible audience, were naturally drawn to Google’s platforms, further entrenching its market power. The Justice Department contended that this self-reinforcing cycle prevented smaller, innovative companies from emerging and competing effectively, ultimately harming consumers through potentially higher advertising costs and reduced innovation.
The legal battles, while yielding findings of illegality, have ultimately resulted in behavioral remedies rather than the structural separations the Justice Department initially sought. This outcome reflects a broader trend in antitrust enforcement, where courts often weigh the potential disruption of structural remedies against the perceived effectiveness of behavioral mandates. While Google’s ad-tech business has been found to operate illegally, the chosen path forward emphasizes modifying its conduct rather than dismantling its organizational structure. The effectiveness of these behavioral remedies will undoubtedly be a subject of ongoing scrutiny, as the Justice Department and Google navigate the implementation of these new rules. The challenge for regulators moving forward will be to ensure that these adjustments genuinely foster a more competitive digital advertising landscape, preventing Google from finding new ways to leverage its dominant position. The ultimate success of this protracted legal effort will be measured not just by the court’s rulings, but by the tangible impact on competition and innovation within the digital advertising sphere.
