Google Must Change Ad-Tech Tools, but Judge Rejects Breakup

A federal judge on September 2 ordered Google to change how parts of its digital advertising technology work with rival tools, while rejecting the Justice Department’s request to force a sale of major ad-tech businesses.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema addressed remedies, not liability. In an April 17, 2025 memorandum opinion, Brinkema found Google liable for unlawfully maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad-server and ad-exchange markets and for unlawfully tying its DFP publisher ad server to its AdX exchange.

The practical effect is not yet fully known. The court’s detailed opinion, which contains the specific remedy language, was under seal for 14 days to allow the parties to review it and propose redactions. The public order was only two pages, and the parties were directed to meet and file a joint final-judgment proposal within 30 days.

What the court found

Publisher ad servers help websites manage and sell advertising space. Ad exchanges run auctions that match available ad space with bids from advertisers and their buying platforms. Those systems work together in fractions of a second when a user loads a webpage.

In its April 17, 2025 memorandum opinion, the court found that Google had monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad-server market and the open-web display ad-exchange market. It also found that Google’s tying of DFP and AdX violated the Sherman Act.

Those are adjudicated findings. They are separate from the Justice Department’s allegations in its January 2023 complaint that Google used acquisitions, product integration and auction practices to strengthen its control over the ad-tech stack.

Breakup sought, but not ordered

The Justice Department sought a structural remedy that included forcing Google to sell key ad-tech assets, including its AdX exchange. Brinkema rejected that forced-sale approach.

Google therefore has not been ordered to spin off its major ad-tech businesses. But the ruling was not a complete victory for the company. The judge ordered behavioral changes, including requirements for Google’s ad-tech tools to work with tools operated by rivals. The detailed opinion is expected to explain the compliance rules and other remedy terms.

The Justice Department said the court ordered substantial relief. Google said it was pleased the court rejected the breakup proposal.

How the system affects the open web

For a publisher, the ad server helps decide which advertising space is available and manages relationships with buyers. An exchange conducts the auction that connects that space with advertiser demand. Advertisers and agencies use buying tools to bid on placements.

Because Google has operated important tools on multiple sides of that process, changes to interoperability, auction practices, data access or dealings with rival platforms could affect how publishers and advertisers use the market. The court’s specific requirements and implementation schedule were not fully public in the initial order.

Who could be affected

Online publishers, including news organizations and independent websites, are likely to be among the most directly affected. They use ad technology to sell inventory that helps support digital services. Changes in how Google tools connect with rival exchanges could alter the options available to publishers and the way auctions are conducted.

Advertisers and agencies could also see changes in how bids move through the system and how campaigns reach publishers. Rival ad-tech companies may gain opportunities if the final judgment gives them greater access or limits practices that the court found harmed competition.

Consumers generally will not see an immediate, clearly labeled change because the systems operate behind the scenes. Over time, however, changes in competition could affect the economics of ad-supported websites and the availability of online content.

It remains uncertain whether the order will produce lower ad prices, fewer ads, higher publisher revenue or direct savings for consumers. The public record does not establish those outcomes.

What happens next

The next major documents are the redacted detailed opinion and the proposed final judgment. The final judgment is expected to set out the remedies, compliance requirements and implementation timetable. The Justice Department could also seek appellate review, although the status and timing of any appeal must be confirmed from later court filings.

For now, the central conclusion is clear but limited: Google was found liable for unlawful conduct in important digital-advertising markets, avoided the breakup sought by the government and must change how parts of its ad-tech system operate. The precise effect on publishers, advertisers, competitors and consumers will depend on the final public remedy language.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.