Google and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) returned to federal court on September 22 to decide how to tackle the tech giant’s dominance in digital advertising. The case, years in the making, could reshape how publishers, advertisers, and rivals operate in the US and have ripple effects across global ad markets.
The hearings follow April’s ruling from US District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who found parts of Google’s AdX platform operated as an illegal monopoly, limiting revenue opportunities for online publishers. Now the court is weighing remedies, including whether Google should be forced to spin off some ad products—a move the company argues is unnecessary.
Earlier in September, Judge Amit Mehta rejected the DOJ’s bid to break up Chrome or Android, ruling these assets were not used to enforce anti-competitive behaviour. Instead, the court favoured behavioural remedies, requiring Google to share data with competitors.
“Google will not be required to divest Chrome; nor will the court include a contingent divestiture of the Android operating system in the final judgment,” the decision stated. “Plaintiffs overreached in seeking forced divestiture of these key assets, which Google did not use to effect any illegal restraints.
The case dates back to October 2020, when the DOJ first filed a non-merger complaint accusing Google of anti-competitive behaviour and monopolistic practices across its search engine and digital advertising segments, marking the start of the historic showdown.
By December, 38 US states had joined the lawsuit, arguing Google’s ad manager suite should be divested.
The trial, which kicked off in September 2023, focused on Google paying billions to ensure its search engine was the default on mobile devices—potentially sidelining rivals like Microsoft Bing and DuckDuckGo. Google defended its actions as fair competition driven by high-quality services.
A landmark August 2024 ruling found Google’s exclusive deals with Apple and other mobile operators were anti-competitive, blocking other search engines and apps from reaching users.
Later that year, in November, prosecutors tabled a reformation plan that would require Google to divest Chrome and curb payments to Apple in making its search engine the default on new phones, in addition to being forced to share it data with competitors.
In May 2025, following an April trial where the court heard proposals on how it could curb Google’s dominance from extending to AI, Mehta had indicated that he would be examining less aggressive measures against Google. In the earlier trial, OpenAI suggested data-sharing could benefit ChatGPT, despite Google CEO Sundar Pichai arguing that this would be detrimental to the company’s stock performance and its proprietary tech.
Following Mehta’s ruling against Google in September, the comapny said on its blog that it plans to comply with sharing search data with rivals despite its concerns with user privacy. Google has announced plans to appeal the remedies ruling.
“Now the Court has imposed limits on how we distribute Google services, and will require us to share Search data with rivals. We have concerns about how these requirements will impact our users and their privacy, and we’re reviewing the decision closely. The Court did recognise that divesting Chrome and Android would have gone beyond the case’s focus on search distribution, and would have harmed consumers and our partners,” the company wrote.
That same month, the European Commission had fined Google nearly $3.5 billion (€2.95 billion) over breaching anti-trust laws after the court found the company abused its dominance by favouring AdX in auctions, leading to higher costs for publishers and consumers.
Google’s return to federal court this month expects Brinkema’s ruling on what remedies would appropriately dismantle the company’s monopoly and reinstate fair practices for competitors. The hearing is scheduled to last two to three weeks and could set a defining precedent on regulation for the adtech industry in the US.
