# Google Dodges Forced Breakup in US Display-Ads Case > Source: > Published: 2026-09-03 17:48:42+00:00 Google’s punishment in the US for abusing its market power in display ads will not include a dismemberment plan; instead, it will consist of not-yet-published “behavioral remedies” governing the tech giant’s conduct. In a two-page [order](https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/og-lookup/?file_path=recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.1857.0_1.pdf) issued Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie M. Brinkema rejected proposals by plaintiffs to force Google to [sell off large parts of its display-advertising business](/ai/159950/transatlantic-twofer-in-googles-display-ads-case-eu-levies-eur295b-fine-doj-proposes-breakup). She instead accepted “most of the parties’ proposed behavioral remedies, as modified by this Court,” but placed the memorandum detailing them under seal for 14 days “to enable the parties to review it for any needed redaction.” In April, Judge Brinkema [found Google guilty](/software-services/157628/google-guilty-of-willfully-anticompetitive-acts-in-display-ads-business-court-finds) of three violations of the [Sherman Act](https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws), the 1890 statute that underpins American antitrust law, for its business practices in the [programmatic advertising system](https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/programmatic-advertising) that fuels advertising on most sites. “Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising,” the judge wrote in a [115-page ruling](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508/gov.uscourts.vaed.533508.1410.0.pdf). She cited Google’s abuses of power in the publisher ad server formerly called DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP), which connects to advertising sources to alert them of ad spots available at a site and holds roughly 90% of that market; and the ad exchange that Google formerly called AdX, which hosts near-real-time auctions among advertisers and sends bids to those publisher ad servers. Google retired the DFP and AdX names and now brands its display-ad tech stack as [Google Ad Manager](https://admanager.google.com/home/). The case brought by then-U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and eight states in [January 2023](/news/145078/doj-google-corrupted-legitimate-competition-with-ad-tech-business) sought the forced divestiture of the Google Ad Manager suite, including DFP and AdX. After Judge Brinkema’s verdict last spring, Google [posted its own proposed conduct remedies](https://blog.google/company-news/outreach-and-initiatives/public-policy/our-remedies-proposal-in-the-doj-ad-tech-case/) in lieu of a breakup. They included commitments to: - Make real-time bid amounts for open web display ads from our ad exchange (AdX) available to all rival publisher ad servers; - Deprecate Unified Pricing Rules for open-web display ads, giving publishers the option to set different price floors for different bidders when using Google Ad Manager; - Commit to not using “first look" and “last look” for open-web display ads. These auction dynamics were phased out of Google Ad Manager years ago. Google’s corporate blog did not have a comment on Brinkema rejecting a structural remedy as of Thursday. Asked for comment, the company’s press office sent this brief appreciation of the judge’s decision from Lee-Anne Mulholland, vice president for regulatory affairs: “We’re very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow.” The problem with behavioral remedies is not so much crafting them as enforcing them. Companies have a history of reading these provisions as flexibly as necessary to preserve their own profits, while a structural remedy that ejects the offending company from a market doesn’t require any follow-through by antitrust regulators. The European Commission, which brought a separate case against Google over its display-ad conduct, still seems to prefer the latter outcome. After the EC found the company guilty of abusing its power in the publisher and advertiser sides of the display-ads market in June 2023, it said then [that only a forced breakup would do](/software-services/147360/european-commission-google-must-divest-part-of-its-display-ads-business). And when the commission imposed a €2.95 billion fine on Google last September, it repeated that suggestion. “At this stage, it appears that the only way for Google to end its conflict of interest effectively is with a structural remedy, such as selling some part of its Adtech business,” EC EVP Teresa Ribera said in a [statement](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_25_2034) at the time. “This seems both necessary and proportionate to effectively stop the infringement.” Judge Brinkema’s decision is the second time a US court has found Google guilty of antitrust violations but declined to force it to sell core parts of its business. In September, US District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta followed up on his August 2024 ruling in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, holding that the company had [maintained an illegal monopoly in search](/software-services/153734/google-created-an-illegal-monopoly-in-search-judge-rules) by rejecting proposed structural remedies, such as [requiring Google to sell Chrome](/browsers/155449/doj-wants-to-force-google-to-sell-chrome-license-search-data-to-rivals). Instead, he imposed [a limited set of behavioral restrictions](/ai/159870/google-gets-to-keep-chrome-must-share-some-search-index-data-with-rivals), such as requiring the company to provide search-index data at “marginal cost” to [competing search engines](/software-services/153785/go-beyond-google-the-best-alternative-search-engines-for-2024). *Editors' Note: We updated this post with a comment from Google.*