A federal judge is coming under harsh criticism for sparing Google from a forced breakup of its digital advertising empire – despite earlier ruling that the Big Tech giant was operating two separate illegal monopolies in the online ad sector.
Page A2From§Eachthe early evening edition — 2 September 2026
Judge finds Google ran two illegal ad monopolies, orders it to break up zero of them
As it ran on the front
I keep a notebook. My wife says I should get one of the ones with the spiral, so pages don't come loose, and she's probably right, because I spent twenty minutes on my porch step this morning going through loose pages before I found the one I wanted. It's got one word on it, underlined twice, from last year: "Two." That's it. Two, and a date, and next to the date, "monopolies — illegal — both." I wrote that down when a federal judge out in the Eastern District of Virginia looked at Google's advertising business and found it was running not one but two separate illegal monopolies in the online ad market. I remember circling "two" because it seemed like a lot to circle. You don't usually get two of something illegal from one company in one sector and just move on with your day.
So I'm sorry, I keep going back to this, but I found the second page. This one's dated Wednesday. Same case, same company, same judge, and it says Google does not have to break up either one of the two. Not one of the two — either one. I read that back to myself out loud on the porch, twice, in case I had the page upside down. How do you get from two illegal monopolies to zero required breakups? I wrote it down as a question because I genuinely don't have the answer, and I've been carrying this notebook around for a year.…
…(cont) I'm sorry, one more pass at it, from a different angle this time. The court didn't say Google gets to keep running things exactly as they were — it said Google has to change its ad tech business. I looked for the page where it says what changes. I went through the whole notebook. Nothing. The ruling apparently doesn't disclose the measures either — I didn't miss it, nobody's written it down anywhere yet, not even the judge, not on the page I have. So we've got two illegal monopolies, a company ordered to change, and no page — mine or anyone else's — that says into what. Is a remedy still a remedy if you can't find the part where it remedies anything?
Out in my garage I've got two identical red gas cans, one for the mower, one I keep meaning to use for the car and never do. My wife's been after me for years to get rid of one, says having two of the same thing around is asking for a mess, a fire hazard, whatever you want to call it. I can't carry both at once — tried it, nearly went down the porch steps — so every week I pick one up, move it three feet, put it back, like that's doing something. Nobody's ever ruled that I have to combine them or sell one off. I still have two. I'm sorry to bring the cans into this, but that's about the size of what I'm picturing when I read "does not have to break up either one."
I keep going back to it because the number hasn't moved. Last year it was two. Wednesday it was still two. The company changed nothing about the count, just got told to change something unspecified about the operation, on a page that doesn't exist yet, that I've looked for.
Oh — excuse me, one more thing before you go. I saw somebody quoted calling the whole ruling "an Olympic level of mental gymnastics." I wrote that in the margin, next to the underline, because it's the only new thing I've added to this page in a year. Everything else on it is old. The finding's old. The word is old.
So here's my question, and I think the notebook answers it: after a federal judge found two illegal monopolies and ordered a breakup of exactly zero of them, how many illegal monopolies does that company still run, today, this week, out loud, on the record? Two.
“They spent a year in federal court proving Google ran two, count 'em, two illegal monopolies in the ad business, and the prize at the end is Google keeps both and gets a homework assignment nobody's graded yet. That's the whole racket in one ruling: guilty, guilty, no penalty, come back never. You want to know why every local paper's dead and every free app is garbage — it's because the company running the toll booth on all of it just got told the tolls stay exactly where they are.”
“Look, nobody's saying there wasn't a finding — there was a finding, the judge found things, that's her job. But "must change its business" — that's a remedy, that's accountability right there in black and white. Did I say black and white? I mean it's more of a — it's a process. The point is the court didn't order a breakup, and if the court didn't order it, then clearly the market's working the way it's supposed to work. That's not spin, that's just — okay, that's spin.”
The receipts
A federal judge has allowed Google to keep its digital advertising exchange marketplace, marking another win for the Big Tech giant as it fends off antitrust lawsuits from the federal government. In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled on Wednesday that Google does not have to sell […]
{beacon} Technology Technology The Big Story Google avoids ad tech breakup A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Google does not have to break up its advertising technology business after finding last year that the search giant held an illegal monopoly over the industry. © Beata Zawrzel, NurPhoto via Getty Images U.S. District Judge…
In a long-awaited decision, a federal judge said Google must change its ad tech business to address antitrust issues, but did not disclose the measures.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.