Google Defends Apple Safari Partnership in Antitrust Appeal
In a submission filed today contesting the antitrust decision regarding its search operations, Google claims that its enduring agreement with Apple demonstrates lawful competition rather than anti-competitive exclusion.
In August 2024, the Justice Department prevailed in its antitrust lawsuit against Google, as the court determined that the company had unlawfully upheld monopolies in general search and search advertising.
The case progressed to the remedies stage, where the court evaluated what limitations should be placed on Google’s search operations, given it was determined to be a monopoly.
A key question monitored during the proceedings was the fate of Apple's search deal with Google.
The details of the agreement unfolded during the trial: Apple designated Google as the default search engine in Safari for iPhone, iPad, and Mac, in return for 36percent of the search ad revenue produced via Safari.
In reality, as court records showed, Google compensated Apple approximately $20 billion in just 2022.
At the end of the remedies phase, Judge Mehta permitted Google to continue compensating Apple for default positioning in Safari, yet established new restrictions on those arrangements.
Also Read: Putin in China as Xi Balances Russia Partnership and US Engagement
With the revised terms, Google is prohibited from making the Safari deal exclusive or stopping Apple from endorsing competing search engines (or generative AI offerings). More significantly, he also established a 12-month limit on defaults.
Also Read: US Lawmakers Push to Curb Chinese AI, Tech Exports Overseas
Consequently, Google cannot require revenue sharing to depend on retaining any Google service as the default for longer than one year, which effectively allows Google's rivals to present Apple with a more attractive offer annually.
Also Read: Trump Withdraws AI Executive Order Citing Threat to U.S. Tech Lead
Generally, the company contends that the district court committed multiple legal mistakes, such as viewing its browser agreements with Apple as exclusionary, defining the pertinent search markets too restrictively, and implementing remedies that compel Google to disclose search data and outcomes to competitors.