OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Judge Spares Google From Digital Ad Business Breakup

11 sources · updated 2026-09-04
Left 0% Center 50% Right 50%
0 left · 1 center · 1 right

What happened

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Google does not have to sell its advertising-technology business, rejecting the Justice Department's request to force a divestiture of the AdX ad exchange. In April 2025, Brinkema had found that Google illegally monopolized the publisher ad-server and ad-exchange markets by tying DoubleClick for Publishers to AdX in a way that made it nearly impossible for customers to leave, while finding the government failed to prove illegal monopolization of advertiser-side tools. She said she would adopt most of the behavioral remedies proposed by the parties, with modifications, but did not disclose those measures; her full opinion is sealed temporarily so the parties can redact confidential information. The outcome parallels a separate DOJ case in which a court found in 2024 that Google illegally monopolized online search and Judge Amit Mehta in September 2025 declined to order a sale of Chrome, instead requiring data sharing and conduct changes. Google vice president Lee-Anne Mulholland said the company was 'very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow'; a DOJ spokesperson said the Antitrust Division was pleased the court ordered 'substantial relief.'
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage of the ruling never says what Google charges on the exchange it does not have to sell. Right-leaning coverage in the New York Post reports that publishers pay a 20% fee on AdX. Missing that figure leaves the no-breakup order sounding like a paperwork fight rather than a decision that leaves Google's cut on open-web auctions in place. That silence holds in The Verge, which explains the illegal tie and never states the fee. Right-leaning coverage frames the same order as a "major defeat for DOJ." Left-leaning coverage in the New York Times instead treats federal courts as hesitant to impose harsh sanctions after finding violations. Does the sealed order actually cut Google's take on AdX, or only the auction tactics around it?
Bottom line

Without the New York Post, Wednesday's Google ruling is a play-nicer story that never mentions the 20% AdX fee still standing.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Publishers pay Google a 20% fee on AdX numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Judge Brinkema said an awful lot of evidence has likely been destroyed legal rulingin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The judge rejected a request to publish the source code of the logic that governs AdX legal rulingin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Brinkema found the DOJ failed to prove Google illegally monopolized advertiser-side tools legal rulingin The Verge · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Google maintained a durable market share of over 90% for its publisher ad server numberin Business Insider · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets framed the decision as Google escaping real consequences for conduct a court had already held illegal. The Verge said Google 'dodges another breakup attempt' and will instead face milder rules that may limit self-preferencing and give rival tools equal real-time information. Business Insider called the likely punishment 'Not much at all' and, quoting ad-tech veteran Ari Paparo, 'pretty close to the best case scenario' for Google; a follow-up argued 'The Feds took their best shot at Big Tech. They missed,' describing the government's two Google liability wins as 'barely consolation prizes.' The New York Times placed the case in a wider pattern: after finding antitrust violations, federal courts have been 'reluctant to impose harsh sanctions' because they 'fear meddling in markets where technology is racing ahead.' Analysts at Madison and Wall, cited in Business Insider, wrote that equal access, data sharing, and ending preferential auction rules are 'unlikely they significantly change the dynamics of the ad tech industry,' especially as open-web display ads shrink beside closed platforms and AI.
The Right View
The New York Post framed the ruling as Google escaping a forced sale 'in another major defeat for DOJ' and said a U.S. tech crackdown that started in President Trump's first term is 'in jeopardy.' It treated the outcome as the third consecutive rejection of a government bid to break up Big Tech—counting it with the Chrome remedies decision and a separate ruling that Meta need not sell Instagram and WhatsApp—and wrote that the result 'is likely to fuel questions about whether courts are up to the task of checking the industry's unprecedented power over the US economy.' A second Post article reported 'outrage,' quoting Tech Oversight Project executive director Sacha Haworth that it takes 'an Olympic level of mental gymnastics to find that Google is operating an illegal monopoly and then decide to do nothing about it,' and noting Brinkema's earlier statement that Google's default-off internal chats were a 'clear abuse of privilege' and that 'an awful lot of evidence has likely been destroyed.' The Post also underscored that AdX is a small slice of Google's business and that remaining federal cases against Amazon and Apple are not expected to go to trial before 2027.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that a monopoly finding without a breakup is a hollow win: The Verge's and Business Insider's accounts of two Google cases, plus Madison and Wall's assessment that remaining conduct orders are 'unlikely' to change ad-tech dynamics, are the core of that claim. The right's strongest argument, advanced by the New York Post, is that a multi-year government campaign to force structural separations has now failed three times in succession, which the paper treats as evidence that courts may not be able to check Big Tech's power—especially with Amazon and Apple trials years away. The central unresolved tension is whether, once a court has found illegal monopolization, behavioral orders suffice to restore competition or only a breakup can—and whether judges' reluctance to order the latter, which the Times attributes to fear of disrupting rapidly changing technology, is appropriate restraint or a failure to remedy the violation the court itself found.

11 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.