US federal courts have consistently shown a wariness in demanding Big Tech make major business changes despite finding antitrust violations, as tech races ahead

and they keep dodgingMartin Peers /The Information:Google's (Small) Antitrust Victory and Microsoft's Azure Shift

New York Times 2026-09-03 Steve Lohr

Context & Ripple Effects

The outcome extends the cautious remedial posture identified in the earlier Google remedies ruling, after 2025 coverage had outlined breakup as one of the options before the court. Google’s 2024 monopoly finding had already weakened the company’s argument that legacy antitrust law could not reach tech markets, but liability has not translated automatically into divestiture.

The broader enforcement record matters: earlier setbacks for the White House and FTC had shown how difficult it is to break up large technology companies through litigation. Public reaction split between the Justice Department’s emphasis on court-ordered relief and critics’ view that the absence of a breakup leaves the underlying market structure intact.

First-order effects

Google avoids a forced sale or breakup of its ad-tech business, preserving the integrated operations at issue while it complies with the court’s relief.
The Justice Department gains a liability finding and court-ordered relief, but not the structural remedy it sought against Google.

Second-order effects

Google’s ad-tech rivals must compete against an intact incumbent rather than a separately owned business, making the practical force of the remedy dependent on implementation and enforcement.
Antitrust enforcers face a higher bar for persuading federal courts that a finding of monopolization requires divestiture rather than conduct-focused relief.

Third-order effects

A repeated separation between antitrust liability and structural remedies would make federal litigation a tool for constraining platform conduct, not reliably for remaking platform ownership.
The pattern preserves antitrust law’s applicability to technology markets while shifting the central policy fight toward what remedies courts will actually order after a win.

The trend: US tech antitrust is developing into a regime where courts may find unlawful monopoly conduct but remain reluctant to impose breakups on platform businesses.

Discussion

@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.
@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/ ...
@ironicprofessor Rob Larson on x
Amazing! Just so everyone's clear, Google has been legally ruled a monopolist TWICE in three years and has faced zero breakup orders AND this time the penalty's a SECRET SHHHHHH
@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…
@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 …
@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 …
@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
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
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...

Chronicles