US court rules Google will not have to sell ad exchange after losing antitrust case
US court rules Google will not have to sell ad exchange after losing antitrust case
美国法院裁定：谷歌在反垄断案败诉后无需出售广告交易平台
A US federal judge has sided with Google, ruling that the company will not have to sell its online advertising exchange (previously known as AdX). The US Department of Justice (DOJ) sought this remedy in the long-running ad tech antitrust trial, which Google lost in 2025. However, the remedies imposed upon Google for that loss are shaping up to be minimal.
一位美国联邦法官站在了谷歌一边，裁定该公司无需出售其在线广告交易平台（前身为 AdX）。美国司法部（DOJ）在 2025 年谷歌败诉的那场旷日持久的广告技术反垄断审判中，曾寻求这一补救措施。然而，谷歌因败诉而面临的惩罚措施目前看来微乎其微。
In this case, the DOJ and a coalition of states sought to prove that Google leveraged its immense market power in online display ads to reduce the reach of competitors. Government lawyers argued that Google had “rigged” ad auctions to give itself an advantage. While the court agreed that Google illegally locked publishers into using its exchange, it did not agree that Google had broken the law when it came to the tools used by advertisers.
在此案中，美国司法部和一个州联盟试图证明，谷歌利用其在在线展示广告领域的巨大市场支配力，削弱了竞争对手的影响力。政府律师辩称，谷歌“操纵”了广告竞价，从而为自己谋取优势。虽然法院认同谷歌非法将发布商锁定在其交易平台上，但并不认为谷歌在广告商使用的工具方面触犯了法律。
Despite the mixed ruling, the DOJ argued during the remedy phase that forcing Google to sell its ad exchange, which facilitates connections between ad buyers and sellers, was the best way to level the playing field. But that won’t happen. While the ad exchange represents a relatively small part of Google’s revenue, forcing the company to sell may have sent ripple effects through the rest of its ad business. It would also have been a powerful message to Big Tech firms, which have successfully knocked back a recent wave of antitrust cases.
尽管裁决结果喜忧参半，但司法部在补救措施阶段辩称，强制谷歌出售其连接广告买家和卖家的广告交易平台，是实现公平竞争的最佳途径。但这不会发生。虽然广告交易平台在谷歌的营收中占比相对较小，但强制出售可能会对其余广告业务产生连锁反应。这也将向大型科技公司发出强有力的信号，而这些公司近期已成功抵御了一波反垄断诉讼。
That doesn’t necessarily mean Google gets off scot-free. While divesting the ad exchange would have been the most serious penalty, the government also asked for fines and court-ordered changes to Google’s business practices. It’s likely that the DOJ will get a lot of that, but we don’t know the specifics yet. Judge Leonie Brinkema has sealed the order for 14 days, giving the parties a chance to request redactions. So we’ll know the exact nature of the remedies in two weeks, but Google’s legal team will undoubtedly be celebrating today.
这并不意味着谷歌可以全身而退。虽然剥离广告交易平台本应是最严厉的惩罚，但政府还要求处以罚款，并要求法院下令改变谷歌的商业行为。司法部很可能会获得其中的大部分诉求，但具体细节尚不清楚。法官莱昂妮·布林克马（Leonie Brinkema）已将裁决书封存 14 天，以便双方申请删减部分内容。因此，我们将在两周后得知补救措施的具体性质，但谷歌的法律团队今天无疑会庆祝一番。
Three losses, little consequence
三次败诉，影响甚微
This is the third of three Google antitrust cases to reach a conclusion. While there still may be some legal wrangling over the exact nature of the advertising remedies, Google is emerging from this era of legal uncertainty largely unscathed. The DOJ’s other case against Google, which was focused on search, resulted in another loss for the company. The case wrapped up last year when the government failed to convince a judge that Google should have to sell off its Chrome browser. In that case, Google was ordered to make search data available to competitors and stop requiring its partners to distribute Google apps on mobile devices. Google, of course, objected to all of this, but that is not a bad outcome when the company was looking at the possibility of losing control of the world’s most popular browser.
这是谷歌三起反垄断案中最后一起结案的案件。虽然在广告补救措施的具体性质上可能仍会有一些法律纠纷，但谷歌已基本毫发无损地走出了这一法律不确定时期。司法部针对谷歌的另一起案件聚焦于搜索业务，谷歌同样败诉。该案于去年结束，当时政府未能说服法官强制谷歌出售其 Chrome 浏览器。在那起案件中，谷歌被要求向竞争对手开放搜索数据，并停止要求合作伙伴在移动设备上预装谷歌应用。谷歌当然对此表示反对，但考虑到该公司曾面临失去全球最受欢迎浏览器控制权的风险，这并非一个糟糕的结果。
The other antitrust case was brought by Epic Games, which alleged that Google had used its control of Android and the Play Store to suppress alternative app stores and keep prices high for consumers. Google lost this one, too, but Epic didn’t get everything it wanted. The remedies are limited to the US, and Google maintains control over app vetting. Still, of the three antitrust cases, this may lead to the biggest changes in how Google does business. After attempting to settle with Epic to avoid distributing third-party app stores, Google had to follow through with that part of the judge’s order several weeks ago. It has also lowered Play Store fees and permitted developers to use alternative payment platforms.
另一起反垄断诉讼由 Epic Games 发起，指控谷歌利用其对 Android 和 Play Store 的控制权来打压第三方应用商店，并维持消费者的高价。谷歌在这起案件中也败诉了，但 Epic 并未获得其想要的一切。补救措施仅限于美国境内，且谷歌仍保留对应用的审核权。尽管如此，在这三起反垄断案中，这起案件可能会对谷歌的商业模式产生最大的影响。在试图与 Epic 和解以避免分发第三方应用商店失败后，谷歌几周前不得不执行法官命令中的那部分要求。它还降低了 Play Store 的费用，并允许开发者使用替代支付平台。
After all these years of hearings, appeals, and decisions, Google’s market power will remain largely unchanged going forward. That frees the company up to try to build new monopolies in AI, and the current DOJ doesn’t seem very interested in standing in the way of Big Tech.
经过这些年的听证、上诉和裁决，谷歌的市场支配力在未来基本不会改变。这使得该公司可以腾出手来尝试在人工智能领域建立新的垄断地位，而现任司法部似乎对阻碍大型科技公司的发展并不太感兴趣。