The Remedy Gap: Why the DOJ's Legal Wins Against Google Fail to Break the Monopoly

### The Victory Without a Prize

In the high-stakes arena of antitrust litigation, there is a profound difference between proving a crime and securing a remedy that actually matters. For the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the recent conclusion of its ad tech battle with Google serves as a stark illustration of this gap.

As reported by Ars Technica, a U.S. federal judge has ruled that Google will not be forced to sell its online advertising exchange, previously known as AdX. This decision comes despite the fact that Google had already lost the antitrust case in 2025. The DOJ and a coalition of states had successfully argued that Google leveraged its massive market power in online display ads to stifle competitors, effectively "rigging" ad auctions to its own benefit.

While Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed that Google had illegally locked publishers into using its exchange, the court stopped short of the structural remedy the government sought. The DOJ argued that divesting the ad exchange—the critical link between ad buyers and sellers—was the only way to truly level the playing field. Instead, the court rejected the breakup, leaving Google's core infrastructure intact.

### The Pattern of Minimal Consequences

*Opinion: From my perspective as a rules-of-the-game analyst, this is not an isolated failure of imagination, but a systemic one. When the government proves a monopoly exists but fails to secure a structural remedy, it signals to Big Tech that the cost of illegal market dominance is merely a line item in a budget, not a threat to their business model.*

This outcome mirrors a broader trend of "hollow victories" in the government's campaign against Google. According to Ars Technica, this ad tech ruling is the third of three major antitrust cases to reach a conclusion, and in each instance, Google has emerged largely unscathed.

First, in a case focused on online search, the government again failed to convince a judge to order the sale of the Chrome browser. While Google was ordered to stop requiring partners to distribute its apps on mobile devices and to share search data with rivals, it maintained control of the world's most popular browser.

Second, Google lost a case brought by Epic Games regarding the Android operating system and the Play Store. While the court found Google suppressed alternative app stores to keep consumer prices high, the remedies were limited. Google has since permitted developers to use alternative payment platforms and lowered Play Store fees, but it retains control over app vetting.

### The Mechanics of Market Power

To understand why the failure to divest AdX is so significant, one must look at the mechanics of the market. According to Engadget, Google charges a 20 percent fee to publishers who use AdX to sell off unused advertising space to buyers in real time. In a 2023 lawsuit brought by the DOJ and eight states, the government asserted that Google held a staggering 87 percent share of the ad-sales tech market.

By using this monopoly position, the government claimed Google facilitated a higher proportion of ad sales and charged higher fees. Judge Brinkema's ruling in April of last year confirmed that Google violated antitrust law by forcing publishers who hosted ads on Google's servers to use AdX.

Yet, the remedy provided is behavioral rather than structural. Engadget, citing Bloomberg, notes that the court accepted "behavioral remedies" that require Google to open its ad tech tools to rivals. While the DOJ also sought fines and changes to business practices, the core engine of Google's dominance remains under its control.

### The Global Context and the AI Frontier

Google's legal struggles are not confined to U.S. soil. Engadget reports that last September, the European Union's executive arm fined Google $3.5 billion after finding the company gave its ad tech products preferential treatment.

Despite these billions in fines and a string of judicial losses, the company's market power remains virtually unchanged. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, expressed satisfaction with the U.S. court's decision, stating the company was "very pleased" the court rejected the proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses grow.

As Ars Technica observes, this lack of structural consequence frees Google to pursue new monopolies in the field of artificial intelligence. With the current DOJ appearing hesitant to stand in the way of Big Tech's expansion, the precedent is set: proving the illegality of a monopoly is not the same as ending it.