Američki sudac odbacio ponudu za razdvajanje Googleovog oglašivačkog poslovanja

A U.S. federal judge has denied the government’s request to split off a key part of Google’s digital advertising operations, according to a court order issued on Wednesday. The ruling comes in a high-profile antitrust case involving the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Google, which has been scrutinized for its dominant position in online advertising. Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, rejected the DOJ’s plan to require Google to divest its AdX platform, instead opting for a set of regulatory guidelines that would govern how the company operates within the ad market. This decision marks the second time in recent years that a federal judge has dismissed a call to dismantle a segment of Google’s business. Last year, a different judge ruled against the DOJ’s attempt to force the sale of Google’s Chrome browser, citing similar concerns over the potential impact on innovation and consumer choice. The current case is part of a larger initiative by the DOJ to challenge the market power of major tech firms, including Apple, Amazon, and Meta. While some rulings have favored the government, others have not, reflecting the complexity and evolving nature of these legal battles. The dispute centers around Google’s ad tech “stack,” a collection of tools used by publishers to sell advertisements and by advertisers to purchase them. In a previous ruling, Brinkema found that Google had willfully monopolized both the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets, and had unlawfully bundled these services together. This bundling, according to the DOJ, allowed Google to control multiple facets of the digital advertising ecosystem, giving it an unfair advantage over competitors. The DOJ argued that Google’s structure, controlling both the platforms that publishers use to sell ads and the exchanges where transactions occur, created a situation akin to a single entity owning both the stock market and the financial institutions that facilitate trading. Prosecutors had sought the sale of Google’s AdX platform and the open-sourcing of core auction technologies, claiming these steps were necessary to restore fair competition. Google, however, opposed these measures, calling them an overreach by the government. The company warned that such actions could negatively affect publishers, advertisers, and ultimately consumers. It also raised technical concerns, arguing that splitting up the service would be impractical. During earlier proceedings, Brinkema expressed doubts about the feasibility of a forced sale, noting that no buyer for AdX had yet emerged. The court’s decision does not end the matter. Brinkema ordered both parties to submit a joint proposed final judgment within 30 days. The reasoning behind the ruling remains confidential, sealed for 14 days before being released. Until then, the specifics of the regulatory framework that will govern Google’s ad business remain unclear. Google has indicated it plans to appeal the underlying liability ruling, suggesting the legal battle is far from over. As the tech industry continues to face increased scrutiny, the outcome of this case could influence future antitrust actions against major corporations. For now, the focus shifts to the next steps in negotiations and the eventual resolution of this complex legal dispute.