Apple barred from Google antitrust trial, putting $20 billion search deal on the line

Apple has suffered a blow in its efforts to salvage its lucrative search placement deal with Google. A new ruling from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirms that Apple cannot participate in Google’s upcoming antitrust hearing, which could leave a multibillion-dollar hole in Apple’s balance sheet. The judges in the case say Apple simply waited too long to get involved.

Just a few years ago, a high-stakes court case involving Apple and Google would have found the companies on opposing sides, but not today. Apple’s and Google’s interests are strongly aligned here, to the tune of $20 billion. Google forks over that cash every year, and it’s happy to do so to secure placement as the default search provider in the Safari desktop and mobile browser.

The antitrust penalties pending against Google would make that deal impermissible. Throughout the case, the government made the value of defaults clear—most people never change them. That effectively delivers Google a captive audience on Apple devices.

Google’s ongoing legal battle with the DOJ’s antitrust division is shaping up to be the most significant action the government has taken against a tech company since Microsoft in the late ’90s. Perhaps this period of stability tricked Google’s partners into thinking nothing would change, but the seriousness of the government’s proposed remedies seems to have convinced them otherwise.

Google lost the case in August 2024, and the government proposed remedies in October. According to MediaPost, the appeals court took issue with Apple’s sluggishness in choosing sides. It didn’t even make its filing to participate in the remedy phase until November, some 33 days after the initial proposal. The judges ruled this delay “seems difficult to justify.”

When Google returns to court in the coming weeks, the company’s attorneys will not be flanked by Apple’s legal team. While Apple will be allowed to submit written testimony and file friend-of-the-court briefs, it will not be able to present evidence to the court or cross-examine witnesses, as it sought. Apple argued that it was entitled to do so because it had a direct stake in the outcome.