A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2026, refused the Justice Department's demand that Google sell AdX, the exchange that runs real-time auctions for publisher ad space. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema instead adopted most of the behavioral remedies the parties had proposed, with modifications, according to The Verge, AdExchanger, Bloomberg, and Ars Technica. The monopoly finding from April 2025 still stands.

Brinkema filed the opinion under seal for about 14 days so the parties can flag confidential material for redaction. A short public order, reported by The Current, rejected structural remedies including "the divestiture of AdX, the open-sourcing of DFP's final auction logic, and the contingent divestiture of DFP Remainder." Bloomberg reported that the parties have 30 days to meet, confer, and file a joint proposed final judgment — or competing proposals if they cannot agree.

In April 2025, Brinkema found that Google illegally monopolized the markets for publisher ad servers and ad exchanges and unlawfully tied DoubleClick for Publishers to AdX, locking publishers into Google's stack. She did not find that the government proved an illegal monopoly in advertiser-side tools. The Justice Department and a coalition of states sued in 2023. CNBC quoted her 2025 ruling that the conduct "substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web." Publishers pay Google a 20 percent fee to sell leftover inventory through AdX as a page loads, CNBC and Engadget reported.

The government wanted a sale. Google argued a forced divestiture would be technically difficult, take years, and hurt customers, and that distrust "is not a lever to bypass well-settled antitrust principles," according to filings described by AdExchanger. DOJ lawyers had called a breakup a "cleaner, less risky solution" and said Google would "test boundaries every step of the way" under behavioral rules.

"We're very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow," Google vice president of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said in a statement. The DOJ Antitrust Division said it was "pleased that the court ordered substantial relief" and was "evaluating appropriate next steps." Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. posted on X that the department "will continue to fight for fair competition" and that "the timing of the Court's order reflects the tradeoffs between immediate relief and remedies obtained through years of litigation."

What Google will actually have to change is still in the envelope. Bloomberg reported the order requires Google's ad tech tools to work with rivals'. The Verge said the public remedies could include limits on self-preferencing in auctions or giving third-party tools the same real-time information Google sees. AdExchanger noted Google had already floated making real-time AdX bid amounts available to rival ad servers, dropping Unified Pricing Rules, and forgoing "first look" and "last look" privileges — items that might land in the final judgment, and might not. Sealed terms are not a public decree yet.

A court can find a monopoly and still refuse to hand the government a breakup. That is what happened in Google's search case, where Judge Amit Mehta declined to force a sale of Chrome and ordered data-sharing and conduct changes instead. CNBC noted it is the third time in a row a judge has rejected a U.S. bid to break up a large tech firm in this cycle, after the Federal Trade Commission failed to make Meta sell Instagram and WhatsApp. Liability is not a blank check for structural surgery. Behavioral decrees are not a free pass either — they are a different kind of state instruction, with the details still hidden.

Google can still appeal the underlying monopoly ruling once the opinion is public, The Verge reported. The district-court remedies phase is over. The finding that Google illegally tied its publisher stack is not.

Sources