A federal judge in Virginia has rejected the Department of Justice's request to force Google to sell its AdX ad exchange, allowing the company to keep the business at the center of an antitrust monopoly finding. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia issued the ruling on Wednesday, accepting instead a set of undisclosed "behavioral remedies" proposed by the parties.

The decision closes — for now — the remedies phase of a case the DOJ and eight states brought against Google in 2023. Brinkema ruled in April last year that Google violated antitrust law by monopolizing two ad tech markets, finding the company forced publishers hosting ads on its servers to use AdX.

What did the court decide?

Brinkema denied the government's divestiture request. Google keeps AdX, the exchange publishers use to sell unused ad space to advertisers in real time, as a user loads a web page. Google charges publishers a 20 percent fee for that service.

The court accepted "behavioral remedies" the parties offered. According to Bloomberg, those measures require Google to open up its ad tech tools to rivals. The judge issued her decision under seal to give the parties time to review it and request any necessary reactions, so the precise terms remain confidential for now.

How did the case get here?

The DOJ and eight states sued Google in 2023. They claimed the company used its monopoly position to charge higher fees and facilitate a higher proportion of ad sales. The government asserted Google held an 87 percent share of the ad-sales tech market.

Brinkema ruled in April 2025 that Google broke the law. She found the company illegally tied publishers that hosted ads on Google's servers to AdX. The DOJ then asked her to order the sale of the exchange — a remedy she has now refused.

Google's regulatory affairs chief welcomed the outcome. "We're very pleased the Court rejected the DOJ's proposal to break apart tools that help small businesses reach new customers and grow," Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

The practical consequence is significant for antitrust litigators and their clients. Structural remedies — forced divestitures — remain available in principle, but Brinkema's ruling shows courts may decline them even after a monopoly finding, favoring conduct-based relief when the parties propose it. Counsel for dominant platforms should note that consented behavioral remedies, such as mandating interoperability with rivals, can satisfy the remedial burden without unwinding a business. Because the order remains under seal, practitioners will watch the public version closely to gauge the scope of the access obligations and enforcement mechanisms — details that will shape how future plaintiffs and regulators frame remedies requests. The ruling also lands alongside mixed outcomes for Google elsewhere: the European Commission fined the company $3.5 billion in September 2025 for giving its ad tech products preferential treatment, while a district judge that same month ruled Google need not sell Chrome despite a search monopoly finding.

For now, AdX stays with Google. The bill is behavioral change, not breakup.