A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday declined to order Alphabet Inc. to sell its online advertising exchange, AdX, turning away the U.S. Department of Justice’s request to force a divestiture of that asset.
The court chose instead to adopt the majority of the behavioral remedies proposed by the parties. The ruling spares Google from a forced sale of AdX - the platform where publishers typically pay Google a 20% fee to run ads through split-second auctions that occur when a web page loads.
The litigation stems from a 2023 lawsuit brought by the DOJ alongside a coalition of states challenging Google’s grip on technology used by online publishers and websites to sell advertising. In April 2025 the same judge, Leonie Brinkema, determined that Google held illegal monopolies both in ad servers that host publisher ads and in ad exchanges that mediate transactions between buyers and sellers. The earlier ruling concluded that Google used its ad server to effectively bind publishers to AdX, a practice the court found unlawful.
In explaining the April 2025 decision, the judge said Google’s conduct "substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web." That finding set the stage for a separate remedies phase, in which the DOJ argued a sale was necessary because Google could not be trusted to operate AdX consistent with competition law, given its prior conduct.
At the remedies trial last year, Google countered that a compelled sale would present severe technical challenges and trigger a protracted transition that could damage customers. The company also pointed to a prior proposal to sell AdX as part of resolving an EU antitrust investigation, a development that was reported in 2024.
Financial context presented in the court record showed that Ad Manager - the ad server product closely linked to AdX - accounted for 4.1% of Google’s total revenue and 1.5% of operating profit in 2020, based on Wedbush research and analysis of court documents. The court filings contained redactions for more recent figures.
Legal backdrop and broader enforcement implications
The Virginia ruling is the second prominent decision that has gone against the DOJ in seeking structural divestitures of technology assets. It follows other high-profile rejections by federal judges of attempts to force breakups or divestitures in cases targeting major technology firms. These outcomes raise questions about the practicality and judicial appetite for structural remedies in antitrust enforcement against large technology companies.
In separate litigation, a federal judge in Washington last year denied the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to require Meta Platforms to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, finding the agency had not proven Meta held monopoly power given the competitive shifts since the case was filed. Similarly, another Washington judge declined the DOJ’s effort to force Google to sell its Chrome browser in a search-related case, citing rising competition from tools built on generative artificial intelligence.
What changed in the remedies ruling
While the April 2025 liability findings remain part of the record, the recent decision narrows the scope of structural intervention. By refusing to compel sale of AdX but approving behavioral measures, the court has favored less disruptive remedies that aim to alter conduct and impose rules governing how Google operates its advertising technologies rather than requiring immediate separation of assets.
The court’s acceptance of most behavioral remedies suggests regulators and plaintiffs may still obtain enforceable commitments intended to open access or restrain certain practices without forcing a change in ownership. The decision leaves intact the liability findings while channeling relief toward operational constraints instead of a divestiture.
Market and sector effects
Although AdX itself represents a modest slice of Google’s overall business, the ruling carries significance for several market participants. Online publishers and digital advertising buyers are directly implicated because the court found they were harmed by Google’s prior practices. The technology and advertising sectors will be watching how behavioral remedies are implemented and enforced, and whether those measures meaningfully alter competitive dynamics in programmatic advertising markets.
Notable limitations in the public record
Court documents include redactions that obscure more recent revenue and profit contributions tied to Ad Manager and related products. Where the public record is incomplete, the decision reflects the court’s evaluation of the evidence presented at trial and during the remedies phase, including competing claims about operational feasibility and customer harm.
For now, Google remains the operator of AdX under behavioral constraints accepted by the court, and the DOJ and states retain the liability determinations from April 2025. How the remedies play out in practice and whether they will satisfy courts or regulators seeking structural change remains to be seen within the limits of the record developed in this case.