Earlier this month, we learned a judge ruled that Google won't be broken up over its monopoly ruling in its ad tech case. And now we have the full memo with the judge's proposed remedies, including Google making behavioral changes.

The memo, which the Court House News posted over here (PDF) says the key ruling and court decisions include:

1. No Divestiture (No Breakup):

Judge Brinkema officially finalized her rejection of the DOJ's central request to force Google to sell off its lucrative ad tech division (like its AdX exchange or publisher ad server). She wrote that a forced divestiture is "neither realistic nor needed" and characterized the DOJ's push for a breakup as boiling down to "a lack of trust that Google will comply with an order from this court and an unrealistic desire for certainty."

2. Imposition of "Behavioral" Remedies:

Instead of a structural breakup, the judge ruled that strict "behavioral remedies" will be sufficient to effectively pry open the ad tech market to fair competition and prevent Google from reverting to monopolistic tactics.

3. Creation of a Monitor and Technical Committee:

Google will not be left to police itself. The judge adopted a proposal to establish a third-party Monitor and Technical Committee. This group will actively oversee Google's compliance with the court's final judgment and ensure it sticks to the rules.

The Operational changes required from Google include:

• Data-Sharing: Google is required to enact basic data-sharing provisions to level the playing field.
• Ban on Discriminatory Bidding: The court issued a strict injunction prohibiting Google from using discriminatory bidding practices that favor its own products over competitors.
• Mandatory Integration: Google is now required to integrate its ad exchange with rival publisher ad servers, preventing it from locking publishers into a closed Google-only ecosystem.

The DOJ pushed for the oversight period to last more than 12 years. Google asked for a 6-year term. The judge sided with Google on the timeline, setting the term to six years, with a major caveat: the court retains the authority to extend the oversight if Google fails to fully satisfy the judgment within that window.

Here is Jason Kint on this:

And she very much understood the assignment on remedies. Not merely stop the specific conduct as Google argued, but terminate the illegal monopoly, deny Google the fruits of its violations, restore competition, and prevent future monopolization. /2 pic.twitter.com/xKbtxWpwJj

— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) September 16, 2026

good news is she reconfirmed her prior view G's demand (AdWords) on buy side is the "golden goose" creating the monopolies despite G arguing it's outside the markets she found to be illegal. She put nondiscrimination and routing restrictions on Google's AdWords. /4

— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) September 16, 2026

here is the full opinion. https://t.co/U83yZBg08z
and a link to my prior statement on the actual opinion. It stands for now. /6 https://t.co/Eb0G92DXQc

— Jason Kint (@jason_kint) September 16, 2026

Forum discussion at X.