Google Faces Imminent Ad Tech Antitrust Remedy Ruling as DOJ Pushes for Divestiture of Ad Exchange
Judge Brinkema's ad tech remedy decision is expected any day, while the DOJ appeals Judge Mehta's search ruling and the EU enforces its own fine
Overview
Google parent company Alphabet is awaiting a federal court ruling that could force it to sell off core pieces of its advertising technology business, in what would be the most significant structural antitrust remedy imposed on a U.S. technology company in decades. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia is expected to issue her decision on remedies before the end of the first quarter of 2026, following a finding in April 2025 that Google illegally monopolized two key advertising markets.
The ad tech case is one half of an unprecedented two-front legal assault on Google’s business. In a separate proceeding, the Department of Justice and 35 states are appealing a search monopoly remedy ruling that they consider too lenient, seeking the forced divestiture of the Chrome browser. Together, the cases threaten to reshape Google’s $200 billion advertising empire and the broader open web.
What We Know
The Ad Tech Liability Ruling
On April 17, 2025, Judge Brinkema ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, according to TechCrunch. The court found that Google unlawfully tied its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), to its ad exchange (AdX), leveraging dominance in one market to foreclose competition in the other.
The judge noted that Google’s conduct had “substantially harmed” publishers and “ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.” However, the government failed to prove a third claim that Google monopolized the market for advertiser ad networks, according to TechCrunch.
The Remedies Battle
A remedies trial began on September 22, 2025, as reported by CNBC, with closing arguments concluding on November 21. The two sides presented sharply different visions for what comes next.
The DOJ is seeking structural relief: divestiture of AdX within 15 months, open-sourcing of DFP’s final auction logic, and potentially divesting the remainder of DFP if behavioral measures prove insufficient. The government has also proposed an escrow fund drawn from Google’s supracompetitive earnings to subsidize publisher switching costs.
Google has countered with a behavioral-only package: making real-time AdX bids available to third-party ad servers, enjoining its “First Look,” “Last Look,” and Unified Pricing Rules practices, creating a server-to-server integration between DFP and the open-source header-bidding wrapper Prebid, and sharing data files with publishers on request. Internal documents revealed during the trial showed that Google had previously explored divestiture scenarios through internal projects codenamed “Sunday” and “Monday.”
During closing arguments, Judge Brinkema expressed skepticism about the “commercial reality” of structural remedies, questioning how a forced divestiture could function given the inevitable and lengthy appeals process. She pressed the government on its failure to identify a plausible buyer for AdX and noted that potential acquirers like Microsoft would themselves face lengthy antitrust reviews. Yet she also emphasized that “time is somewhat of the essence,” noting that AI developments could significantly alter the ad tech landscape.
The Search Monopoly Front
The ad tech case runs parallel to a separate, equally consequential proceeding. In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., ruled that Google had illegally maintained its search monopoly, primarily through exclusive default placement agreements costing over $20 billion annually.
In September 2025, Judge Mehta imposed behavioral remedies but rejected the DOJ’s call for Chrome divestiture, according to TechCrunch. The court barred Google from entering or maintaining exclusive deals tying the distribution of Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, or Gemini to other apps or revenue arrangements, and ordered the company to share certain search data with qualified competitors.
As previously reported, the DOJ and 35 states filed a formal appeal in February 2026, characterizing the behavioral remedies as a “slap on the wrist for a recidivist monopolist.” Google, in turn, filed its own appeal in January 2026, arguing that the data-sharing mandates “would jeopardize user privacy for hundreds of millions of Americans,” as reported by CNBC.
The European Front
Google faces pressure from across the Atlantic as well. In September 2025, the European Commission imposed a 2.95 billion euro fine on Google for self-preferencing its AdX platform over competing ad exchanges, as reported by TechCrunch and Euronews. EU Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera warned that “if [Google] fails to come forward with a serious remedy to address its conflicts of interest, we will not hesitate to impose strong remedies.” Google was given 60 days to propose changes to its practices and has announced it will appeal.
What We Don’t Know
The most critical unknown is whether Judge Brinkema will order structural divestiture of Google’s ad tech assets or opt for behavioral remedies with structural relief held in reserve. Her comments during closing arguments sent mixed signals: skepticism about the practicality of forced divestitures, but acknowledgment that the competitive landscape demands timely intervention.
It also remains unclear how any U.S. remedy will interact with the EU’s parallel enforcement. If both jurisdictions order structural separation, the combined impact on Google’s advertising business could be far greater than either action alone. If one opts for behavioral remedies and the other for structural, Google could face an uneven regulatory patchwork across its largest markets.
Both U.S. cases are widely expected to reach the Supreme Court, likely in 2027 or 2028, meaning final resolution could be years away regardless of what Judge Brinkema decides in the coming days.