What did U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema decide on September 2, 2026, in the Justice Department and states’ antitrust case against Google’s advertising technology business—including why she declined to force Google to sell its AdX exchange despite finding in April 2025 that G

Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell its AdX advertising exchange, opting instead for behavioral remedies. Although she had found in April 2025 that Google illegally monopolized publisher ad servers and ad exchanges and unlawfully tied its publisher ad server to AdX, the September 2 order concluded that a breakup was not warranted; the full rationale remained under seal. 12

• What she ordered: Brinkema accepted most of the parties’ proposed conduct remedies, with modifications. The remedies require greater interoperability between Google’s ad-tech tools and rivals’ tools and include Google’s proposal to give qualified competing publisher ad servers real-time access to AdX bids—intended to let competitors participate on more equal technical terms. 12

• What she did not order: She denied the DOJ and states’ structural requests, including divestiture of AdX and the proposed separation of Google’s publisher ad-server business, often called Google Ad Manager/DFP. The court also declined the government’s request to require Google to open-source its auction logic. 12

• Why the explanation was limited: The initial decision was issued under seal. Brinkema said she would release the detailed opinion within 14 days, after the parties proposed confidential-business-information redactions. Thus, the public order established the result but did not fully disclose her reasoning for preferring conduct rules to divestiture. 1

• Business significance: AdX is a comparatively small element of Alphabet’s overall operations, but it is central to the infrastructure through which publishers sell open-web display advertising. Wedbush estimated that Google Ad Manager accounted for 4.1% of Google’s 2020 revenue—small relative to search advertising, but still a meaningful business and strategically connected to Google’s broader ad ecosystem. 1

• Reactions: Google welcomed avoiding a forced sale. The DOJ said it was reviewing the decision and its options. Investors treated the ruling as a relief: Alphabet shares rose nearly 1% on September 2 after the court rejected the dismantling request. 13

• Broader antitrust meaning: This was a substantial symbolic setback for the U.S. campaign to obtain court-ordered Big Tech breakups. It was described as the third recent failed attempt to force such a breakup, following other unsuccessful divestiture efforts against major technology companies; the DOJ/FTC cases against Amazon and Apple had not yet reached trial. The decision does not erase the monopoly finding, but it signals that winning liability does not automatically secure the government’s preferred structural remedy. 12