The U.S. Justice Department has pursued multiple antitrust lawsuits against Google, targeting its dominance in search and advertising technology, labeling parts of its business as illegal monopolies. While courts have agreed with the government’s assessment, including landmark rulings in 2024 against Google's search and ad-tech operations, recent decisions show a reluctance to dismantle the company's core assets. Notably, a judge rejected proposals to break up Google’s Chrome browser and Android OS despite confirming its monopoly status and required Google to remove exclusive default search deals.

Most recently, on September 2, 2026, federal judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Google can retain its extensive advertising business rather than being forced to divest it. Instead, the court mandated that Google adjust its business practices to create a fairer competitive environment, though the specifics of these changes remain under seal and will be disclosed after appropriate redactions. This ruling follows a pattern established in earlier cases, where remedies focus on modifying behavior rather than breaking up the company.

Google framed the decision as a victory, with Lee-Anne Mulholland, the company’s vice president for regulatory affairs, highlighting the importance of the tools Google provides to small businesses. The government’s case emphasizes how Google solidified its market position through exclusive contracts with device manufacturers and revenue-sharing agreements with mobile carriers, ensuring its search engine’s default status and bolstering its advertising dominance.

The complexity of the digital advertising ecosystem and Google’s entrenched role have made regulatory efforts challenging. While the Justice Department has succeeded in proving monopolistic practice, courts seem to favor adjusting Google’s business methods over outright breakup. Google's compliance with new operational requirements, as ordered by the court, will be closely watched as the company navigates ongoing regulatory scrutiny.