A U.S. federal judge on Sept. 2 rejected the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempt to force Google to sell its online advertising exchange, AdX, marking the second time in recent years that the tech giant has avoided a court-ordered breakup. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, declined to compel Google to divest AdX, instead accepting most of the proposed behavioral remedies from both the DOJ and Google.
The ruling follows a 2023 lawsuit in which the DOJ and a coalition of states accused Google of illegally monopolizing the publisher ad-server and ad-exchange markets. In April 2025, Brinkema found Google had maintained illegal monopolies by tying its ad server (DoubleClick for Publishers, or DFP) to AdX, making it difficult for publishers to use competing services. Google’s Ad Manager—including AdX—accounted for 4.1% of its total revenue and 1.5% of operating profit in 2020, according to court documents.
Google’s AdX operates as a real-time auction platform, where publishers pay Google a 20% fee to sell ad space instantly as users load websites. The DOJ had argued that Google’s past conduct made it unfit to continue operating AdX, while Google countered that a forced sale would cause prolonged technical disruption and harm customers. The company also noted that its 2024 offer to divest AdX in a separate EU antitrust case differed from the DOJ’s demands.
Court Ruling: Behavioral Remedies Over Breakup
Brinkema’s full opinion remains sealed for 14 days, pending redactions of confidential information. However, the judge approved most of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies, which are expected to require Google to modify its business practices to foster competition. The DOJ described the decision as a step toward restoring competition in online advertising markets, while Google framed it as a victory for businesses relying on its ad tools.
The remedies phase of the trial revealed diverging views on Google’s conduct. The DOJ argued that Google’s history of anticompetitive behavior—including tying DFP to AdX—demonstrated it could not be trusted to operate AdX fairly. Google countered that the technical complexity of unwinding AdX would outweigh any benefits, pointing to its 2024 EU divestiture offer as evidence of its willingness to address concerns.
Broader Implications for Google and Big Tech
This decision is the second time in recent years that a federal judge has rejected a DOJ push to break up a Google business. In 2024, a separate judge refused to force Google to sell its Chrome browser after finding the company held an illegal monopoly in online search. The DOJ has pursued similar cases against other tech giants, including Meta and Apple, with mixed results.
AdX’s role in Google’s broader ad tech stack—a suite of tools used by publishers and advertisers—has been a focal point of the lawsuit. Brinkema’s April 2025 ruling found that Google’s practices harmed competition and publishers, though the judge did not mandate a sale. The upcoming unsealing of her full opinion may provide further clarity on the specific behavioral changes required.
Market and Political Reactions
Shares of ad tech companies, including The Trade Desk, AppLovin, Magnite, and Taboola, rose following the ruling, suggesting investors viewed the decision as potentially leveling the playing field. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, saw a slight increase in stock value, while the DOJ framed the remedies as a win for competition.
Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, stated the company was pleased the court rejected the DOJ’s breakup proposal, emphasizing that AdX tools help small businesses reach customers. The DOJ, however, maintained that the remedies would address Google’s monopolistic practices and benefit consumers.
The two sides now have 30 days to submit a joint proposed final judgment, with Brinkema’s full opinion expected to be unsealed in mid-September.