BRUSSELS — How do you solve a monopoly like Google’s?
It’s a question that has beset Brussels for the past year, ever since the European Commission fined the search giant €2.95 billion for monopolizing the vast market for digital advertising. A few months earlier, in April 2025, a U.S. judge had also found Google guilty in a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice (DoJ), as parallel investigations on both sides of the Atlantic finally ran their course.
On Wednesday, however, the same U.S. judge made the European Commission’s life a lot more difficult.
In a ruling from Washington’s own attempt to break up Google, Judge Leonie Brinkema, of the Federal District of Eastern Virginia, rejected the DoJ’s request for a forced divestiture of parts of its business.
That decision leaves the EU alone, at a time of transatlantic discord, in advocating that the online advertising giant break itself up.
“It’s obvious that the European Commission has been holding out for a decision in the parallel U.S. case, even if it has the authority to act independently and should have done so long ago,” Max von Thun, Europe director at the Open Markets Institute non-profit, told POLITICO.
One year after the Commission issued its fine, both the complainants who brought the case, and the civil society groups who see this as a test of the EU’s nerve in confronting Big Tech, fear the EU executive may find itself with limited options to loosen Google’s stranglehold on the online advertising ecosystem.
“As long as Google maintains the incentive and the means, they have an endless number of paths to achieve comparable anti-competitive goals,” said Arielle Garcia, CEO of Check My Ads, a U.S.-based watchdog, adding that while a Europe-only remedy might be technically possible, its effect would be minimal.
In her order, Brinkema said she didn’t see a structural divestment of part of Google’s business as necessary to remedy the finding of liability against the company.
Last September, in a parallel decision, the Commission said a divestment appeared to be the only way to resolve Google’s inherent conflict of interest.
Making the best of it
Among those who brought the case, the mood is resigned. Several people involved in the complaint said privately that they no longer see a viable way to carve out and sell part of a U.S. company’s business within Europe alone, and are now pushing for the strongest measures the Commission can realistically deliver.
“There was such an expectation that breakup was going to change the world. It was never going to change the world. The key critical issue is what you do about non-discrimination,” said Tim Cowen, a partner at Preiskel & Co., who represents a complainant in the case.
The obstacle to a breakup is as much structural as it is political.
Google’s buying tools, selling tools and the exchange between them run as one global system. A sale ordered by Brussels would apply on one side of the Atlantic, in a market where the largest advertisers and publishers don’t stop at the EU’s borders.
The Commission recognizes some of those difficulties.
Structural remedies in cases where parties have already completed investment activities “are of course very difficult and can be politically contested,” said DG Competition’s Director General Anthony Whelan at a conference in Florence on Friday.
“Irrespective of the context of transatlantic relations, of course, this is a difficult case,” Whelan added.
The EU executive is still assessing Google’s compliance plan, having granted the firm an extension within the deadline for assessing its proposal back in March.
The extension was meant to give the Commission time to analyze Google’s plan “in depth” and take a view on whether it is compliant, said Ricardo Cardoso, a spokesperson for the EU executive.
Google submitted the plan in November 2025, proposing changes to how its tools work rather than a sale. Ribera called the offer serious as the Commission put it to industry for comment.
The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened tariffs over the EU’s actions against U.S. tech companies, and last year opened a trade investigation a day after Brussels fined Google under its digital rulebook.
“One year on, those conflicts of interest remain,” said Andreas Schwab, a German lawmaker with the center-right European People’s Party. “Instead of taking action, [the Commission] continues to give Google more time to extend its market power.”
Schuman showdown
Campaigners marked the one-year anniversary of the Brussels Google fine on Friday at the Schuman roundabout, where they pelted a Google logo with fake money.
A coalition of non-profits including People vs Big Tech, LobbyControl, Rebalance Now, WeMove Europe and the Balanced Economy Project puts Google’s EU revenues at €288 million a day since the ruling dropped, based on filings in 19 member countries compiled by the Media and Journalism Research Center. The figure covers Google’s whole EU business, not just advertising.
Nienke Palstra, of the People vs Big Tech civil society network, said the case has become a test of Europe’s courage, and that every day the Commission delays, Google consolidates its position.
“Google has shown it will not act of its own accord to make the changes needed and the Commission must step up,” Max Bank, EU competition lead at Rebalance Now, told POLITICO.
Von Thun from the Open Markets Institute went further. “Instead of following this misguided decision by Judge Brinkema, the Commission must now show global leadership by imposing the structural remedies that are needed,” he said.
“As always, we stand ready to hear the views of civil society groups and consumers,” a Commission spokesperson told POLITICO on Friday, adding that they continue their investigation in the Google Adtech case “as a matter of priority.”
Google is appealing the Commission’s decision at the EU’s General Court, and said Wednesday it was “very pleased” with the U.S. ruling. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the extension.
With reporting from Francesca Micheletti in Florence.