Google Avoids Advertisement Division Split, Yet Judge Mandates Operational Reforms
The U.S. Justice Department has been engaged for several years in efforts to dismantle Google’s expansive advertising operations, pursuing two distinct antitrust lawsuits: one initiated in 2020 targeting Google’s search dominance, and a second in 2023 concentrated on its ad-technology sector. Both lawsuits contend that Google’s stronghold on the digital advertising market constitutes an unlawful monopoly.
Judicial rulings have generally favored the government in these cases. In 2024, a court ruled that Google’s search operations, particularly its profitable search-advertising segment, amounted to an illegal monopoly, stating that the company had “exercised its monopoly power” to control the search market and its associated advertising. A subsequent court decision in April also upheld similar findings concerning Google’s ad-technology operations.
After the ruling in 2024, officials from the Justice Department proposed several measures to dismantle Google’s search enterprise, which included divesting both its Chrome browser and Android operating system. However, in September 2025, Judge Amit Mehta, who presided over that case, denied these divestiture requests, allowing Google to retain Chrome and Android. He did, however, mandate that the company terminate exclusive default-placement agreements and share some search data with competitors, remedies that Google is now appealing.
This trend continued this week when federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Google could maintain its advertising business. Rather than divesting, Google must modify its business practices to ensure fair competition, as stated by Brinkema. The judge’s ruling, highlighted by the New York Times, did not specify what adjustments Google is expected to make.
Brinkema’s full written decision will be kept confidential for 14 days to allow for any necessary revisions. Her determination that Google acted unlawfully in managing its ad-technology operations dates back to the previous year; this recent judgement focused solely on the remedies required.
Google interpreted this outcome as a success. Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president for regulatory affairs, expressed to TechCrunch that they were pleased with the court’s decision to reject the DOJ’s suggestion to dismantle tools that assist small businesses in reaching new customers and expanding.
The landscape of online advertising is known for its complexity and lack of transparency, making it difficult for many to understand its intricacies. A major aspect of the government’s case against Google’s ad-tech division revolved around the company’s strategies to ensure its search engine was the default option on devices globally, which in turn benefitted its advertising business.
To achieve this, Google engaged in exclusive partnerships with device manufacturers, establishing itself as the default search engine across large segments of the mobile market. Additionally, Google formed revenue-sharing agreements with mobile carriers—where carriers would receive a portion of ad revenue in return for designating Google as the default search engine—further solidifying its dominance in mobile search.
