Google defends $20B Safari search deal

Google told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 22 that its multibillion-dollar search placement deal with Apple reflected competition on the merits, not unlawful exclusion. The filing is Google’s latest move in the Justice Department’s long-running antitrust case over online search, after U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August 2024 that the company had illegally maintained monopolies in general search and search advertising. Google is asking the appeals court to reverse that ruling in full, while the Justice Department and states are separately pressing for stronger remedies than Mehta imposed. The dispute keeps one of the technology industry’s most lucrative distribution arrangements — Google’s default search placement in Apple’s Safari browser — at the center of the case. ### Why is the Apple deal so central to the case? Apple’s Safari arrangement with Google became a focal point because it shows how default placement works in search. Court records cited in coverage of the appeal said Apple set Google as the default search engine in Safari on iPhone, iPad and Mac in exchange for 36% of the search advertising revenue generated through Safari, and that Google paid Apple about $20 billion in 2022 alone. (msn.com) Judge Mehta’s 2024 ruling found that Google used default agreements to maintain its monopoly, and Apple’s scale made its contract one of the most important examples. The Justice Department’s case, filed in 2020, accused Google of using monopoly profits to buy preferential placement on devices and browsers. The department’s case page shows the litigation has continued into 2026, including compliance reports and technical committee orders tied to the remedies process. ### What exactly is Google arguing in the appeal? (9to5mac.com) Google said in its May 22 filing that the district court wrongly treated its browser agreements as exclusionary and wrongly concluded that its search success came from anything other than merit-based competition. In the filing, as described by Reuters and other reports, Google said Apple chose its search engine because of quality and monetization, and that “Google just prevailed in the marketplace fair and square.” (justice.gov) 9to5Mac’s account of the filing said Google also challenged remedies that would require it to share search data and results with rivals. Google argued that browser makers were free to choose other providers and that Apple was not blocked from promoting alternatives. ### Didn’t the trial court already impose a remedy? (msn.com) Judge Mehta’s remedies ruling did not ban Google from paying Apple for default placement outright, according to reports on the decision and appeal. Instead, the ruling allowed the Safari arrangement to continue with limits: Google could not make the agreement exclusive, could not stop Apple from promoting rival search engines or generative AI products, and could not tie revenue sharing to keeping Google defaults for more than 12 months. (9to5mac.com) That 12-month limit mattered because it was supposed to give rivals recurring chances to bid for placement. Search Engine Land, citing Reuters and Bloomberg, reported in February that the Justice Department and states appealed because they wanted broader changes, including stronger action on default search deals and structural remedies the district court declined to impose. (9to5mac.com) ### Why are AI companies watching this case? Google’s filing said generative AI companies should not receive Google search data as part of the remedies, arguing those products did not exist during the period covered by the government’s case and were already succeeding without access to Google’s data. Coverage of the appeal said Google is seeking to block data-sharing mandates that challengers had hoped would help them compete more quickly. (searchengineland.com) The practical effect is that the appeals process keeps the existing economics of search distribution in place while the courts review both Google’s challenge to liability and the government’s challenge to the remedy. Reuters reported on May 22 that Google had appealed the monopoly ruling, and the Justice Department docket shows the case remains active in 2026. (macrumors.com) ### What happens next in court? The D.C. Circuit now has both Google’s appeal of the monopoly ruling and the government’s push for stronger remedies in front of it. Reports on the case say oral argument has not yet been scheduled, and the appellate process is expected to take months. Until that process moves forward, the Safari arrangement remains governed by the district court’s existing limits rather than the more sweeping changes the government sought. (msn.com) (meteoraweb.com)