Structural remedies address a competition problem by changing what a company owns or controls. In an antitrust case, the court may require the company to divest a business, sell an asset or separate operations. The intention is to change the market's structure rather than simply order the company to follow different rules.
A structural remedy differs from a behavioral remedy. A behavioral order might prohibit discriminatory pricing, require access to a service or prevent a company from favoring its own products. A structural remedy could instead transfer a business to an independent owner that can compete without depending on the company accused of unlawful conduct.
A sale or separation is not automatically effective. Regulators and courts must consider whether the buyer can run the assets, whether key staff and technology transfer, and whether the businesses remain intertwined. Remedies can also face appeals, implementation delays and disputes over compliance. In the Google advertising-technology case, competing structural and behavioral proposals have been central to the remedies debate.
When reading an antitrust judgment, distinguish remedies the parties requested from remedies the judge actually ordered. Check exactly which assets or businesses would change hands, who would oversee the process and whether an order is in effect or subject to further review.