Google spared break-up of online advertising monopoly

A federal judge has ruled that Google will not have to divest crucial parts of its digital advertising arm, rejecting the US Department of Justice’s argument that a forced sale is the only way to dismantle its monopoly over the business.

On Wednesday, Judge Leonie Brinkema denied the DoJ’s request that Google be forced to sell its “AdX” advertising exchange and publisher ad server businesses.

The decision is the second time that a court has dismissed the DoJ’s attempts to break up Google’s parent company Alphabet, despite prosecutors winning the two cases by convincing courts the tech group held an illegal monopoly.

The ruling deals a blow to the US government’s attempts to rein in the power of Big Tech. Brinkema opted to enforce “behavioural remedies” on Google, which will be determined later and probably include data sharing and making its technology compatible with competing products.

Her decision follows a similar ruling a year ago in a case about Google’s search engine. Judge Amit Mehta ruled that while Google operated an illegal monopoly, it did not have to sell its Chrome browser and Android operating system as the DoJ had requested.

Mehta similarly went for behavioural remedies, such as sharing more search data and a ban on exclusive distribution contracts, such as the roughly $20bn that Google paid Apple each year to be the default search engine on its devices.

Both judges flagged the practical difficulties of forcing spin-offs of such large businesses and worried that technology would have moved on during years of appeals from Google, especially as AI shakes up the sector.

“We’re very pleased the court rejected the DoJ’s proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice-president of regulatory affairs.

Alphabet stock has risen 57 per cent over the past 12 months, helped by investors’ relief that the company has survived a trio of antitrust losses with its core businesses intact.

In April last year, Brinkema ruled that Google had “wilfully” built an illegal monopoly in online advertising using anti-competitive practices such as privileged contracts and technological integration between its offerings. Google used its dominance to impose a 20 per cent fee that ate into publishers’ earnings.

AdX is the largest marketplace for bidding for online ad space, and Google’s publisher ad server is the most prevalent technology online publishers use to list and sell ads on their websites.

Brinkema rejected another part of the justice department’s case, saying it did not prove Google unfairly dominated the third component of the market, advertiser ad networks.

The judge’s full opinion is sealed for two weeks until a final set of remedies is agreed between Google and the DoJ and to allow confidential material in the evidence to be redacted.

“The Antitrust Division is pleased that the court ordered substantial relief,” the DoJ said. “We are one step closer to restoring competition and bringing relief for the American people in online advertising markets.”

However, the ruling was criticised by anti-monopoly campaigners as “toothless” and with little chance of disrupting Alphabet’s power.

“Judges keep finding Google guilty but it keeps walking away with both its ill-gotten gains and its empire intact,” said Laurel Kilgour of the American Economic Liberties Project. “Without structural remedies, antitrust rulings are just inconvenient speed bumps.”

In 2024, Alphabet was also ordered to open up its Android operating system to rivals after a San Francisco judge found it used its Google Play Store to suppress competition in apps and charge excessive fees.