A US federal judge rules that Google does not have to sell off its ad exchange and instead must make its ad tech tools work with those operated by rivals

Alphabet Inc.'s Google doesn't have to sell off its advertising exchange and instead must make its ad tech tools work with those operated by rivals …

Bloomberg 2026-09-02 Leah Nylen

Context & Ripple Effects

The remedy follows Judge Brinkema’s 2025 finding that Google held monopolies in ad exchanges and website ad tools, while not meeting the monopoly standard for large-advertiser buying tools. The DOJ had sought a sale of Google’s ad exchange and publisher ad server rather than a conduct-based fix.

The outcome also extends a pattern in the separate search case: Google avoided divestiture there but was ordered to share search data with rivals. The ad-tech ruling applies that access-oriented approach to a market where the court had already identified monopoly power.

First-order effects

Google keeps its ad exchange, but must make its ad-tech tools interoperable with rival operators’ tools.
Rival ad-tech providers gain a court-mandated route to connect with Google’s tools rather than relying solely on Google-controlled workflows.

Second-order effects

Publishers and advertisers using Google’s website and exchange tools gain more practical scope to use rival services alongside them, raising competitive pressure on Google’s product integration and terms.
Google’s ad-tech rivals must turn interoperability into workable alternative buying, selling, and exchange connections; access alone does not transfer customers.

Third-order effects

The ruling favors behavioral remedies over forced asset separation in Google’s U.S. cases, putting enforcement weight on whether mandated access is technically usable and enforceable.
If similar remedies recur, platform-antitrust cases may increasingly focus on interoperability and data access as ways to lower switching barriers without restructuring the platform owner.

The trend: U.S. antitrust remedies for Google are moving toward compelled interoperability and access rather than breakups, even where courts find monopoly power in specific platform layers.

Discussion

@leehepner Lee Hepner on x
The Google Ad Tech case was about the collapse of the open web at the hands of a monopolist who siphoned billions per year from journalists and creators. The government argued “only structural relief would terminate Google's illegal monopolies.” This is a travesty by the court.
@jcbcp Jacob Parry on x
No need to break up Google in order to remedy its monopolization of the ad tech market, rules the U.S. judge on the case. Thus the EU will have to go it alone on a break-up of Google in its own case, as it has previously said may be the only solution. https://www.courtlistener.co…
@balancecrafting @balancecrafting on x
Google itself did an internal analysis showing that divestiture was feasible. Only structural remedies end both incentive and ability to rig auctions — Google has a long history of coming up with new ways to rig auctions
@sherman1890 @sherman1890 on x
The court rejected the Government's bid for a breakup in the Google Ad Tech decision. This brief order will be followed later by a more detailed opinion. I thought the government had a better case here than it did in the Search case.
@briancalbrecht Brian Albrecht on x
Judge Brinkema rightly rejected the proposed structural remedies in Google AdTech. We are waiting on the behavioral remedies but this looks to be a solid win for publishers and advertisers. The Court really could have messed some stuff up going in with an axe.
@pkafka Peter Kafka on x
“The decision ensures that Google's power over the internet will be largely unchanged as it moves to dominate a technological era defined by artificial intelligence”
@aripap Ari Paparo on x
Not unexpected, the AdX spin out seemed complicated and unlikely to make a big difference.
@ariellesgarcia Arielle Garcia on x
The US v. Google adtech remedies order is live: https://www.courtlistener.com/ ... Incredibly disappointing that structural remedies have been rejected. The full memo is sealed for 14 days, so unfortunately, not much more to say. A win for big tech, at the expense of us all.
@vidushi_law Vidushi Dyall on x
This is the govt's second failed breakup bid, and the second federal judge to reject the most radical parts of a remedy proposal: Judge Brinkema rejected ordering a divestiture of Google's ad exchange (AdX) and the open sourcing/de facto divestiture of its publisher server (DFP).
@hedgeyetechlaw Paul Glenchur on x
As expected, a fed court opted for conduct remedies in the Google ad tech monopoly case, rejecting DOJ's requested divestiture of Google's ad exchange AdX. Still, closer integration of Google Ad exchange demand with rival publisher servers should benefit rivals like Magnite and P…
@danielahanley Daniel Hanley on x
Once again, our pathetic judiciary fails us. The court in the Google Ad-Tech lawsuit rejected the DOJ's requested structural remedies, including forcing Google to divest AdX or DoubleClick.
@justiceatr @justiceatr on x
The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief in the Google Ad Tech case. We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets. The Department is evaluating appropriate next steps.
@sarafischer Sara Fischer on x
Fed gov now 0-3 in recent efforts to break up Big Tech: 1. Meta-Insta/WhatsApp (lost case) 2. Google-Chrome (won case, no breakup remedy imposed) 3. Google-Ads Manager (won case, no breakup remedy imposed) Big picture: The threat of legal liability from civil suits is proving to …
@matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x
Judges are just sanctioning monopolies at this point.
@leehepner Lee Hepner on x
Check the date. The Google Ad Tech remedy arrives exactly one year after the Google Search remedy. Wow.
@erikhovenkamp Erik Hovenkamp on x
No breakup in the Google ad tech case. Not a surprising result. I do think the argument for a breakup was stronger here than in Google Search. But courts are going to err strongly against breakups in cases like this, b/c (a) it's super messy and (b) if the divestiture fails, the …
@ronmknox Ron Knox on x
Courts are terrified to break up monopolies, so instead they defer to behavior changes and regulation that requires constant monitoring and a perpetual game of antitrust whack-a-mole with a monopolist. It's never worked before but hey, good luck. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@sherman1890 @sherman1890 on x
The Google Ad Tech court did state that “most of the parties' proposed behavioral remedies, as modified by this court” are accepted. That appears to be the trend in dominant firm cases.
@martyswant Marty Swant on x
Essentially, Google has avoided its worst-case scenario for the second time in a row. The first time was exactly a year ago, when the judge overseeing the search antitrust remedies trial decided not to force it to divest of Chrome.
Johnny Ryan Johnny Ryan on linkedin
Google, proven illegal ad tech monopoly, gets to retain its RTB exchange. — This puts it up to European enforcers who have already signalled …
@robin.berjon.com Robin Berjon on bluesky
The US judicial system has failed, despite finding Google guilty twice, and the European Commission will only sit on its thumbs and do nothing. — We're on our own. — We can do this, though, if we're more strategic and less confused and cowardly than our leaders. — www.nytim…
@caseynewton Casey Newton on bluesky
It's cool how you can lose two different antitrust lawsuits and still not have to make any structural changes to your business at all www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/t...
@leahnylen Leah ‘AntiTrustButVerify’ Nylen on bluesky
For the second time, Google dodged a bid by the Justice Department to break up its monopoly: www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
@willoremus Will Oremus on x
On one hand, requiring interoperability seems like a not-unreasonable remedy to monopolization by a tech platform. On the other, where is the incentive in any of these decisions for tech platforms to avoid monopolizing in the future? https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
@jessicalessin Jessica Lessin on x
Can we please please have some thoughtful evoution of copyright legislation for this new era? Wishful thinking but pretty darn urgent. The training topic is just so frustrating, in part, because the damage has been done and I don't think it will matter as much in the future. B…

Chronicles