Apple’s search deal with Google could face renewed scrutiny as Justice Department appeals antitrust ruling – 9to5Mac

Last year, a federal judge ruled that Google illegally maintained a search monopoly, but allowed the company to continue paying for the default search engine on Apple devices (with very few caveats). Now the Justice Department and a group of states are appealing the overall decision. Here are the details.

A little background

In August 2024, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had resorted to illegal means to maintain its monopoly on the US online search market.

Part of that decision involved Google’s exclusionary agreements with companies like Apple because they had more severe anti-competitive effects.

With that decision in the books, the case moved into a year-long appeals phase, during which multiple witnesses from all sides, including affiliates like Apple, tried to make their case for exactly what should happen to Google.

From forcing the company to spin off Chrome to preventing exclusivity deals like the one with Apple, everything seemed on the table.

It was during one such hearing that Apple SVP of Services Eddy Cue famously downplayed Apple’s deal with Google, suggesting that AI would render search (and even the iPhone) obsolete to the point that their current exclusivity deal would be irrelevant.

Finally, last September, Judge Mehta issued his opinion, which was hugely beneficial for Google.

As we reported at the time:

Here’s what Google can and can’t do when it comes to future partnerships with Apple:

What is allowed

• Apple’s search partnership with Google may continue. Justice Mehta rejected a blanket “ban on payments” and found that it would harm partners and consumers. Because of this, Google will continue to pay Apple to be the default (even though it isn’t exclusive) search engine on Safari;
• Google will continue to be able to pay browser developers (including Apple) for default, provided that the browser can promote other search engines, set different default settings based on OS version or private mode, and change default settings on an annual basis;
• And speaking of defaults, the court found that opt-in screens weren’t shown to improve search competition, so that means Apple won’t have to add new opt-in UIs in Safari or iOS because of this decision;
• Regarding generative artificial intelligence, the decision prohibits agreements that would prevent a Google partner from simultaneously distributing generative artificial intelligence products (as well as other general search engines and browsers). In practice, this means that Apple will be able to promote or integrate non-Google assistants or chatbots, although Google Search will remain Safari’s default.

What not to do

• No exclusivity, including generative products or artificial intelligence features. That means Google can’t require Apple to make Google the only option, block Apple from showing competitors, or bundle a deal for one Google app (like Search) with another (like Gemini);
• No incentives related to exclusivity. Google cannot offer higher levels of revenue sharing or bonuses in exchange for exclusivity or for tying multiple Google Apps together;
• 12-month default limit. Google cannot condition revenue sharing on any Google service being left as the default for more than one year. This means that Google’s competitors will have a chance to offer Apple a better deal every year.

Last December, the court issued a final ruling, which Google appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals last month.

Google also asked a federal court to stay part of the decision while an appeals court reviews the case, which brings us to today.

The Justice Department and several states are appealing

As revealed in court documents today, the Justice Department and a group of states are also formally appealing the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court.

From the document:

NOTICE OF RELATIVE APPEAL

It is hereby acknowledged 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 State 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 here in the State of Wisdappe in the case of Plaintiff in the State of Wisdappe hereinabove. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from a final judgment of that court entered on December 5, 2025, and all orders in this action have been consolidated into this final judgment.

It’s not yet clear which specific parts of the ruling the Justice Department and the states will challenge on appeal, but they will likely try to overturn as much of Judge Mehta’s decision as possible, which could include parts of the Google-Apple deal that were left intact.

Google has not yet commented on the cross-appeal, and it is likely that Apple will also remain silent on the case until or unless the terms of its agreement come back into play.

Be that as it may, the situation is unlikely to change any time soon, with the Court of Appeal not expected to consider until later this year or later.

Accessories offer on Amazon