Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has signaled a behavioral remedy in the government's ad tech monopolization case against Google — one that will require the company to deal more even-handedly with competitors but will stop well short of any structural relief, such as divestitures or a breakup of the company. The details of the order remain under seal, but the broad contours are clear: Google will not be forced to split itself apart, and the remedy is unlikely to have a material impact on its business, let alone its core operations.

The ruling follows the pattern set a year earlier in the search monopoly case. In 2024, a different federal judge held that Google illegally monopolized the search market. When that judge announced the remedy in September 2025, it, too, spared Google any "structural" changes, such as selling off parts of itself, and barely dented the company's operations.

Ad tech industry veteran and author Ari Paparo called the ad tech outcome "pretty close to the best case scenario for them."

The two Google decisions bookend a broader run of disappointments for federal enforcers. In November 2025, Meta defeated the Federal Trade Commission's monopoly suit, freeing the company from any obligation to divest Instagram or WhatsApp. The FTC's effort to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, launched in December 2022, ended in defeat three years later when Microsoft won its appeal. The government continues to appeal the Meta loss and still has pending cases against Amazon and Apple.

These suits spanned administrations. The litigation campaign began under the first Trump administration and accelerated during the Biden years, as Washington sought to curb the market power the major platforms accumulated over the past two decades. Congress, for its part, has never made a serious legislative attempt to rein in Big Tech — the 2024 TikTok sell-or-ban law being the notable exception, and one that has been effectively shelved through repeated enforcement extensions. Courtrooms were supposed to be the remaining tool. On the evidence so far, they have not delivered.

Practical consequences for practitioners

For antitrust practitioners, the takeaways are concrete. Liability findings against Google — twice — have produced remedies confined to conduct regulation, not structural separation. Clients facing monopolization claims can reasonably expect that winning the liability phase does not guarantee a breakup; the remedial phase has proven far narrower than the government's opening positions. Deal lawyers can point to Microsoft/Activision as evidence that merger challenges to large technology acquisitions remain winnable for defendants. And plaintiffs' counsel and state attorneys general may represent the more consequential frontier: Meta agreed in August 2026 to pay $18 billion to settle a teen addiction suit brought by several US states — a figure colleagues at Business Insider note CEO Mark Zuckerberg may reasonably call a bargain relative to the divestiture risk the FTC case carried. Civil suits by users, state-level actions, and European regulatory scrutiny continue independently of the federal docket.

The market's verdict

Investors appear satisfied with the trajectory. Meta's stock rose after the company disclosed the potential $18 billion payout. Google's stock climbed after the ad tech remedy emerged on Wednesday.

That reaction reflects a structural reality: the federal cases target Big Tech as it used to be. The ad tech conduct at issue in Brinkema's case, for instance, touches a shrinking segment of Google's business that may account for only about 1% of revenue today. None of the pending suits addresses the industry's aggressive push into artificial intelligence.

Washington may yet make Big Tech pay for the old internet, through settlements, fines, and conduct decrees. On the current record, there is little sign it will prevent the major platforms from owning the next one.