DistantNews
Support us
Respite for Google in Digital Advertising Monopoly Case as Judge Orders Business Changes but Rejects Breakup Image: iStock
🇲🇽 Mexico /Technology

Respite for Google in Digital Advertising Monopoly Case as Judge Orders Business Changes but Rejects Breakup

From El Universal · () Spanish

Translated from Spanish and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources In the courts
  • A federal judge ordered Google to restructure parts of the system supporting its digital advertising business but rejected the U.S. government’s request to force a breakup.
  • Judge Leonie Brinkema’s decision marks the second time in a year that Google has avoided a proposed Justice Department dismantling of its internet businesses.
  • Critics of Big Tech condemned the ruling, saying it failed to address the company’s illegal monopoly.

Google has avoided being broken up in the U.S. government’s digital advertising monopoly case, but a federal judge ordered changes to the system that supports the company’s dominant position.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Federal District Court in Virginia rejected the Justice Department’s argument that Google should sell parts of the technology behind its complex advertising system. The ruling came in an initial two-page decision, while the full opinion will remain sealed for 14 days as the parties review it and propose redactions.

The decision gives Google another reprieve from government efforts to dismantle its internet empire. In 2024, a judge ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine operated as an illegal monopoly. The Justice Department later sought a remedy that would have required Google to sell its Chrome web browser, but a different federal judge overseeing that case rejected the proposal in September.

It takes an Olympic level of mental gymnastics to conclude that Google operates an illegal monopoly and then decide to do nothing about it.

— Sacha HaworthThe Tech Oversight Project chief executive criticized the judge’s decision not to order a breakup.

Courts have described Google’s business practices as anticompetitive. The company’s parent, Alphabet Inc., has a market value of $4.11 trillion, while Google’s advertising business generates a substantial share of nearly $400 billion in annual company sales.

Big Tech critics sharply criticized Brinkema’s ruling. Sacha Haworth, chief executive of The Tech Oversight Project, said, “It takes an Olympic level of mental gymnastics to conclude that Google operates an illegal monopoly and then decide to do nothing about it.” She added, “With Big Tech choking off the ability of new innovative businesses to get off the ground, Judge Brinkema, like federal Judge Amit Mehta before her, is sending the wrong message at the wrong time.” Google did not respond to a request for comment.

With Big Tech choking off the ability of new innovative businesses to get off the ground, Judge Brinkema, like federal Judge Amit Mehta before her, is sending the wrong message at the wrong time.

— Sacha HaworthHaworth argued that the ruling would harm competition and new businesses.
About this summary

Originally published by El Universal in Spanish. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog