Brussels stated that only a split would resolve issues with Google's ad technology. However, the judge who acknowledged the liability has now refused to mandate such a breakup.

      Judge Leonie Brinkema denied the US Department of Justice's request to compel Google to divest parts of its advertising business, leaving the European Commission as the sole regulator still advocating for a breakup as a solution. A year after imposing a €2.95 billion fine, the Commission is evaluating a compliance plan that Google submitted in November 2025. According to some complainants involved in the case, they no longer foresee a divestiture occurring.

      On Wednesday, Judge Brinkema ruled against the Justice Department's push for Google to sell off sections of its advertising operations during the remedies phase of a case where she had already determined the company's liability in April 2025. Jacob Parry from Politico reported that her ruling leaves the European Commission alone in its pursuit of a structural remedy.

      The Commission had previously fined Google €2.95 billion for monopolistic practices in digital advertising and indicated at the time that divestment seemed necessary to resolve the conflict of interest. However, Brinkema, upon reviewing the same actions, concluded that a structural divestiture was not required to address the liability she identified.

      The challenge arises more from mechanical constraints than from political factors. Google's buying tools, selling tools, and the exchange between them function as a unified global system, which means any order from Brussels would impact a business with major advertisers and publishers operating beyond the EU borders.

      The Commission has recognized this challenge. According to DG Competition director general Anthony Whelan, structural remedies can be "very difficult and politically contested," particularly in cases where investments have already been made, noting the complexity remains a tough issue, regardless of transatlantic relations.

      This represents a notable shift from the Commission's stance a year ago. The recent US ruling eliminated the simultaneous case that Brussels had referenced.

      The most revealing aspect from Politico’s report comes from the plaintiffs rather than the Commission’s position. Several individuals involved in the complaint have expressed privately that they no longer believe there is a feasible way to separate and sell off part of a US company's operations within Europe.

      Tim Cowen of Preiskel & Co, representing a complainant, remarked, “There was such an expectation that breakup was going to change the world. It was never going to change the world,” emphasizing that the crucial issue now is non-discrimination.

      This marks a significant retreat from those who would benefit most from a divestiture, indicating a shift from ownership issues to conduct regulations—an area that Google has historically preferred.

      Instead of a divestiture, Google offered a compliance plan in November 2025, suggesting modifications to how its tools function rather than selling them. The Commission has taken additional time to thoroughly evaluate this proposal, having granted itself an extension in March.

      Google is appealing the Commission's ruling at the EU’s General Court and expressed satisfaction with the US legal outcome. The delay imposes costs that only one side incurs.

      Campaigners have estimated these costs, albeit loosely. A coalition including People vs Big Tech, LobbyControl, and the Balanced Economy Project claims that Google has generated €288 million in daily revenues in the EU since the ruling, based on reports from 19 member states compiled by the Media and Journalism Research Center, although this figure encompasses Google's entire EU operations rather than just advertising.

      Not everyone agrees that a US ruling should dictate European enforcement policies. Max von Thun of the Open Markets Institute suggested that the Commission should take a global leadership stance by implementing structural remedies instead of adhering to what he described as a misguided decision.

      He also criticized the timing, arguing that the Commission has had the authority to act independently for some time and should have done so sooner. Arielle Garcia of Check My Ads posited that as long as Google retains the incentive and means, there will continue to be numerous ways to achieve comparable anti-competitive outcomes.

      The opposing viewpoint is that an unenforceable order is less preferable than a narrower, enforceable one. A divestiture that Brussels cannot implement would lead to years of appeals and allow Google to control the schedule.

      This situation is not developing in isolation. The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened tariffs in response to EU measures against American tech companies and launched a trade investigation the day after Brussels fined Google under its digital regulations.

      Whelan’s assertion that the case is challenging irrespective of transatlantic relations reflects the reality that these relationships are indeed a significant factor. Brussels has been re-evaluating its approach to enforcing regulations on US technology across various issues.

      Andreas Schwab, a German MEP from the center-right, bluntly conveyed to Politico that conflicts of interest persist a year later, with the Commission consistently granting Google additional time to reinforce its market dominance.

      Ultimately, non-discrimination rules appear to be the likely outcome, and while they are not insignificant, they require continuous oversight over a system that regulators cannot fully observe, presenting similar challenges seen in other aspects of advertising.

      The FTC’s case against Amazon's ad auction focuses on whether advertisers were informed about price-setting mechanisms. Both scenarios lead to