The Monopoly That Won't Die: Why the Court's Mercy Toward Google is a Failure of Justice

Let's be clear about what just happened in the federal courts: Google was caught playing dirty, and the legal system decided that wasn't a big enough deal to actually stop them.

In a ruling that serves as a staggering slap in the face to antitrust enforcement, a US federal judge has decided that Google will not be forced to sell its online advertising exchange, previously known as AdX. This decision comes on the heels of a 2025 antitrust trial where the US Department of Justice (DOJ) successfully proved that Google acted illegally. As Ars Technica first reported, the DOJ and a coalition of states demonstrated that Google leveraged its massive market power in online display ads to stifle competitors, effectively "rigging" ad auctions to secure an unfair advantage.

Even when the court agrees that Google illegally locked publishers into using its exchange, it refuses to take the necessary step to break that grip. The DOJ argued that forcing the sale of the ad exchange—the critical bridge connecting ad buyers and sellers—was the only real way to level the playing field. Instead, Judge Leonie Brinkema has sided with Google, ensuring the company retains its grip on this vital piece of infrastructure.

This isn't just a failure of a single case; it is a systemic collapse of accountability. To understand the gravity of this moment, we have to look at the pattern. This is the third of three massive antitrust cases to reach a conclusion, and in every single instance, Google has emerged virtually unscathed.

First, there was the search case brought by the DOJ. Google lost that case last year, yet the government failed to convince a judge to force the sale of the Chrome browser. Instead of a structural remedy that would actually challenge Google's dominance, the company was merely ordered to stop requiring partners to distribute Google apps on mobile devices and to make search data available to competitors.

Then there was the battle with Epic Games. Epic alleged that Google used its control over the Play Store and Android to keep consumer prices high and suppress alternative app stores. Google lost that case as well. While the court did order Google to allow third-party app stores and lower Play Store fees, Google maintained control over app vetting and the remedies were limited to the US.

Now, we arrive at the ad tech ruling. While the DOJ may still secure fines or court-ordered changes to business practices—details that Judge Leonie Brinkema has sealed for 14 days—the one remedy that would have sent a shockwave through Big Tech has been rejected.

As Ars Technica notes, forcing the sale of the ad exchange would have sent a powerful message to other tech giants who have spent years knocking back antitrust efforts. Instead, the court's timidity suggests that as long as a company is big enough, it is effectively too big to be dismantled. The legal system is treating these monopolies like unruly children who need a timeout and a small fine, rather than corporate entities that have systematically rigged the markets they dominate.

When the government proves a company acted illegally to crush its competition, the remedy should be structural. If you build a monopoly through illegal means, you should lose the components of that monopoly. Anything less is just a cost of doing business.

By refusing to order divestiture, the courts have signaled to the industry that you can break the law, lose the trial, and still keep the prize. Google’s market power remains largely unchanged. More frighteningly, this failure of nerve clears the path for Google to attempt to build new monopolies in the field of AI, with a DOJ that currently appears uninterested in standing in the way.

Google's legal team is undoubtedly celebrating. They should be. They have discovered that in the modern American legal system, losing an antitrust case is a victory as long as you get to keep your company.