In a pivotal moment last year, a federal judge determined that Google had unlawfully entrenched a search monopoly.
However, the ruling permitted Google to continue its financial arrangements to be the preeminent search engine on Apple devices, albeit with limited constraints.
Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ), alongside a coalition of states, has initiated an appeal against this overarching decision. Below are the salient points regarding this development.
Background Context
In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta concluded that Google engaged in illicit tactics to sustain its dominant position in the U.S. online search arena.
A crucial aspect of this judgment pertained to Google’s exclusionary agreements with entities such as Apple, which exacerbated the anticompetitive ramifications.
Following this verdict, the case transitioned into an extensive year-long remediation phase. During this period, various witnesses, including representatives from associated corporations like Apple, presented their arguments regarding the potential repercussions for Google.
The range of proposed remedies included mandates for the company to divest Chrome or prohibitions against exclusive contracts akin to its agreement with Apple, among other possibilities.
During one noteworthy hearing, Eddy Cue, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Services, downplayed the significance of Apple’s partnership with Google.
He posited that advancements in artificial intelligence might render conventional search, and even the iPhone itself, obsolete, thus making their current exclusive arrangement moot.
Ultimately, in September, Judge Mehta issued an opinion that was largely favorable to Google.
As previously reported:
The implications for Google’s future partnerships with Apple are as follows:
Permissible Actions
- Apple’s search collaboration with Google will persist. Judge Mehta dismissed a universal “payment ban,” asserting that it would detrimentally impact partners and consumers alike. Consequently, Google can continue compensating Apple to be the primary (though not exclusive) search engine on Safari;
- Google retains the right to financially incentivize browser developers (including Apple) for default positions, as long as the browser can also promote alternative search engines, alter defaults across different OS versions or private modes, and revise the default settings annually;
- Regarding defaults, the ruling concluded that choice screens did not enhance search competition, exempting Apple from integrating new choice interfaces into Safari or iOS following this decision;
- Concerning generative AI, the ruling prohibits contracts that would prevent a Google partner from simultaneously marketing generative AI solutions or other search engines and browsers. Thus, Apple will maintain the freedom to promote or integrate non-Google assistants or chatbots while retaining Google Search as the default in Safari.
Prohibited Actions
- Exclusivity is off the table, even for generative AI products or features. Google may not compel Apple to designate Google as the sole option, inhibit Apple from showcasing competitors, or link the agreement for one Google app (such as Search) to another (like Gemini);
- No incentivized exclusivity. Google cannot provide enhanced revenue-sharing tiers or bonuses in exchange for exclusive arrangements or bundling multiple Google applications;
- An annual default limit applies. Google cannot make revenue-sharing contingent upon maintaining any Google service as the default for over one year, thus allowing competitors to present more appealing offers to Apple annually.
By December, the court issued its conclusive judgment, prompting Google to file an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last month.
Additionally, Google has petitioned the federal court to temporarily suspend parts of the ruling while the appellate court conducts its review, setting the stage for the current situation.
DOJ and States Initiate Appeal
Court documents released today reveal that the Department of Justice, along with multiple states, is formally appealing the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The official documentation states:
NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that the United States of America, the State of Arkansas, the State of California, the State of Florida, the State of Georgia, the State of Indiana, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the State of Louisiana, the State of Michigan, the State of Missouri, the State of Montana, the State of South Carolina, the State of Texas, and the State of Wisconsin, plaintiffs in the above-named case, hereby cross-appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the final judgment of this Court entered on December 5, 2025, and all orders in this action merged into that final judgment.
The specific aspects of the ruling that the DOJ and the states may contest remain uncertain. However, a broad effort to overturn significant portions of Judge Mehta’s ruling, including elements of Google’s agreement with Apple that were upheld, is anticipated.
At present, Google has refrained from commenting on the cross-appeal, and Apple is similarly expected to maintain silence regarding the case until the terms of its agreement are reevaluated.
Nevertheless, the likelihood of an immediate resolution appears minimal, with no definitive timeline for the appeals court’s review being established.
Source link: 9to5mac.com.
