Judge Signals Doubts About Forcing Google to Break Up Ad Tech Arm as Antitrust Case Nears End

ALEXANDRIA, VA — The landmark antitrust case targeting Google’s dominance in digital advertising reached its final courtroom chapter on Friday, as U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema listened to closing arguments and signaled sharp reservations about the Justice Department’s push to carve apart the tech giant’s ad business.

The hearing marked the end of the remedies phase — the stage where the court determines how to fix the monopoly Judge Brinkema already found Google guilty of maintaining. In April 2025, she ruled that Google unlawfully monopolized the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets, cementing control over crucial layers of the online advertising pipeline.

Now, months later, the debate has boiled down to a defining question:
Should Google be forced to sell off its cornerstone ad technology, or should the company face a strict set of conduct rules instead?

Government Pushes for the Harshest Remedy: Break Google Apart

Arguing for the Justice Department, attorney Matthew Huppert painted Google as a company that built a fortress around the digital ad market—one that locked out rivals, stifled innovation, and left publishers with no meaningful alternatives.

According to the government, only a structural breakup can unwind the advantage that Google allegedly engineered for itself. That remedy would require Google to divest its Ad Manager suite, including the influential AdX exchange.

Huppert said Google’s behavior over the past decade demonstrates that no behavioral remedy can restrain the company for long. He urged the court to dismantle what he called Google’s “illegally fortified position,” warning that anything short of a breakup would leave the market vulnerable to repeated manipulation.

“The open web deserves real competition,” Huppert said, urging the judge to rebuild the market “from the roots upward.”

Google Warns of Chaos, Describes Breakup as ‘Reckless’

Google’s response was swift and emphatic. Lead counsel Karen Dunn argued that forcing a divestiture would ignite unprecedented technical disruption across the global advertising ecosystem. She said that publishers, small businesses, agencies, and advertisers depend on Google’s integrated systems — and tearing those systems apart could trigger instability far beyond Google itself.

Dunn also stressed that possessing dominant market share does not make a company unlawful by default. She cited legal precedent suggesting that monopoly power, when lawfully acquired, is not inherently illegal.

Her broader argument: The industry is already shifting fast, driven heavily by artificial intelligence and new ad technologies. According to Google, the market is evolving with enough competition and innovation that no breakup is needed.

“This remedy would create far more harm than good,” Dunn said, calling the government’s proposal extreme and unnecessary.

Judge Brinkema’s Sharp Questions Reveal Practical Doubts

Throughout the hearing, Judge Brinkema steered the conversation back to a single obstacle: time.

A court-ordered breakup would trigger a lengthy appeal from Google — a process that could delay enforcement for years. The judge openly questioned whether such a remedy could survive that timeline, or whether it would lose relevance in an industry capable of shifting dramatically in a matter of months.

She pressed the government on the feasibility of executing a complex divestiture under the shadow of appeals, noting that the court must issue a remedy that is both enforceable and timely.

Brinkema also pointed out that Google is facing a wave of follow-on lawsuits from advertisers and publishers, further complicating any structural fix.

In contrast, Google said its behavioral proposals — such as increasing interoperability and granting broader data access — could roll out in roughly a year, a timeline that seemed to resonate with the court.

What Happens Now

Judge Brinkema did not offer a ruling or hint at her final decision. However, legal analysts expect a written order in early 2026.

The decision will determine whether Google faces one of the most significant court-ordered breakups in the history of American technology — or whether it escapes with oversight and operational constraints.

For Google, the stakes are enormous. Earlier this year, it avoided structural penalties in a separate antitrust case involving its search business. But this case strikes at the heart of Google’s revenue engine: digital ads.

For regulators, the case represents a watershed moment. A breakup could mark a turning point in how the U.S. enforces antitrust laws against major tech platforms. A lighter remedy could signal continued judicial caution in dismantling Big Tech, even when courts agree that anticompetitive conduct has occurred.

Either way, the decision will reverberate across the global advertising industry and shape the future of online competition for years to come.