Google just fired back at the antitrust judgment that branded its long-standing payments to Apple illegal. In a fresh appeal filed this week, the search giant insists the arrangement that funnels roughly $20 billion a year to Apple for default placement in Safari rests on quality and user preference. Not exclusion.
The filing lands nearly two years after U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled Google a monopolist that violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote in August 2024. The decision centered heavily on revenue-sharing deals that keep Google as the preset search option across billions of iPhones, iPads and Macs.
Yet Google tells the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the lower court got it wrong on multiple fronts. The company didn’t block rivals. It didn’t prevent Apple from switching. And Apple picked Google because the service simply performed better. “Google just prevailed in the marketplace fair and square,” the brief declares.
Documents unsealed during the original trial painted a clear financial picture. Google paid Apple around $20 billion in 2022 alone. That sum represented about 36 percent of the search advertising revenue generated through Safari. AppleInsider reported the appeal’s core message: the deal was never coercive. Apple could have promoted alternatives. Safari’s settings still let users change defaults with a few taps.
Apple’s own executives backed that view in testimony. Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president of services, told the court the choice came down to what served customers best. “We have to pick what’s best for our customers, and today, that is still Google.” Cue dismissed Bing as “horrible at monetizing advertising” and “inferior.” Microsoft reportedly offered to match or beat Google’s payments. Apple wasn’t interested. There was “no price that Microsoft could ever offer” to displace Google, according to court records.
Those statements matter. They undercut the government’s theory that Google’s payments foreclosed competition. If Apple viewed rival engines as weaker on relevance, speed and ad performance, then the revenue share reflected business judgment. Not monopoly maintenance.
But the remedies phase produced a mixed outcome. Judge Mehta barred Google from entering exclusive distribution contracts. He capped default agreements at one year, opening the door for annual renegotiation and competitive bidding. Apple can now promote rival search engines. Yet the court stopped short of killing the payments outright. Google can continue sharing ad revenue with Apple for placement. Just not on an exclusive basis.
That compromise left both companies breathing easier. For Apple the annual windfall bolsters its services revenue, a growing profit driver. For Google the traffic from iOS devices underpins a huge slice of its search ad business. Analysts estimate Safari accounts for a substantial share of mobile queries in the United States.
Google’s appeal seeks to unwind the liability finding entirely. It argues the district court defined the relevant market too narrowly, treated standard distribution agreements as exclusionary, and ordered improper remedies including forced data sharing with competitors. The company also wants generative AI firms such as OpenAI excluded from any data-sharing obligations. Those products “did not even exist” in meaningful form when the conduct at issue occurred, the filing contends. They shouldn’t get to “free-ride on Google’s success.”
The appeal arrives at a delicate moment for both firms. Regulators worldwide continue to scrutinize big tech partnerships. Europe’s Digital Markets Act has already forced Apple to allow browser choice on iOS. Similar pressures could build in the U.S. if the DOJ prevails on appeal.
Recent coverage highlights the stakes. MacRumors detailed Google’s claim that its dominance stems from “better innovation, more investments, and just working harder.” The piece notes remedies took effect in February 2026 but data-sharing details remain unresolved because a technical committee has yet to set privacy and implementation terms. Oral arguments likely won’t happen until late 2026 or 2027.
9to5Mac reported that Google frames the Safari agreement as “lawful competition on the merits.” The outlet revisited how the original ruling found Google maintained illegal monopolies in general search and search advertising. It also clarified the remedies allow continued payments while preventing Apple from being barred from promoting rivals or locking in multi-year defaults.
Industry watchers point to shifting user habits as another variable. AI-powered search tools from OpenAI, Perplexity and even Google’s own Gemini are drawing queries away from traditional blue links. Apple has signaled interest in enhancing Siri with more intelligent answers. That evolution could pressure the existing revenue-sharing model in coming years.
Still. The core dynamic hasn’t changed. Most iPhone users never bother to adjust their default search engine. Google remains the overwhelming choice. Its results load faster for many. Its ad system earns more. Apple collects a sizable check without lifting a finger on the search technology itself.
Critics call it a sweetheart deal that entrenches Google’s position. Google calls it the natural outcome when one company builds a superior product and another company chooses it for sound business reasons. The appeals court will now decide which description holds up under antitrust law.
The original trial exposed reams of internal emails and strategy documents. They showed both firms understood the arrangement’s importance. Apple weighed building its own search engine and rejected the idea as too costly and risky. Google viewed the default slot as essential to protecting its query volume and ad revenue.
Those realities haven’t vanished. Even with one-year contract limits, the financial incentive for Apple to stick with Google stays strong. The technical quality gap hasn’t closed enough for rivals to mount a serious challenge on iOS.
So the appeal represents more than legal housekeeping. It tests whether courts will accept that billion-dollar default payments can reflect competition rather than its absence. If Google wins reversal, the data-sharing remedies disappear. The liability finding vanishes. Future deals face less legal cloud.
If the appeals court upholds Mehta’s decision, Google must navigate tighter rules on distribution agreements. Apple keeps collecting payments but under shorter, more competitive terms. Either path shapes how the two giants cooperate and compete for years ahead.
The case has already reshaped antitrust thinking. It forced discussion of defaults, revenue shares and the power of platform distribution. It highlighted how consumer inertia and product quality interact with contracts. And it put a spotlight on the quiet financial ties that bind Apple and Google despite their public rivalry in phones, maps, browsers and now artificial intelligence.
Google’s latest filing leans hard on the evidence from Apple’s own mouth. Executives didn’t feel coerced. They evaluated options and chose what they believed worked best. Bing couldn’t match the monetization. Other engines lagged in relevance. Switching would have hurt users and Apple’s own bottom line.
That testimony carries weight. Antitrust law doesn’t punish success earned through superior products. It targets conduct that harms competition without corresponding benefits. Google argues its payments delivered value to Apple while giving users the search experience they preferred. No one was locked out. Rivals could still compete for default status when contracts came up for renewal.
The coming months will test those arguments before a different set of judges. Their decision could either reinforce the lower court’s view that these deals crossed the line or affirm that Apple and Google simply struck a deal that made sense for both. For now the payments continue. The partnership endures. And the legal fight over whether it was fair and square moves to its next round.
Google’s $20B Safari Pact With Apple: Fair Competition or Locked-In Monopoly? first appeared on Web and IT News.