A federal judge determined last summer that the more than $20 billion Google pays Apple to be the default search engine on its devices is unlawful.
Several Apple executives provided testimony during the proceedings, but the judge has denied a request to include three more witnesses, stating that Apple had delayed their request.
Current Developments
When you conduct a web search by entering your query in Safari’s integrated search bar, it defaults to Google (unless you’ve manually changed it). This is due to a multi-billion dollar annual payment Google makes to Apple for this placement.
This agreement is highly advantageous for Google, as it generates significant search traffic from Apple users, allowing them to display advertisements to this audience. Apple customers represent an especially lucrative market for advertisers, given their above-average purchasing power.
For Apple, the arrangement is beneficial since they receive substantial income without any direct effort—by defaulting to Google, which is a widely recognized search engine, it would likely happen regardless.
The exact payment amount is confidential, rolled into Apple’s Services revenue, but estimates suggest it has risen from low single-digit billions at the start to over $20 billion in recent years.
These estimates seem to be accurate, as revelations from the antitrust lawsuit against Google accidentally disclosed the figure for 2022, confirming it was indeed $20 billion.
A judge ruled that Google is violating antitrust regulations by making these payments to Apple, suggesting that they should be ceased for the next decade. This would significantly impact Apple’s Services revenue.
The ongoing case now focuses on whether this proposed solution will be upheld or altered.
Judge Denies Apple’s Request for Additional Witnesses
On December 23, just before Christmas, Apple made an eleventh-hour request to add three extra witnesses to bolster its defense. It’s important to note that Apple is not being accused of wrongdoing for accepting the payments, but they clearly have a vested interest in the result.
However, according to Courthouse News Service, the judge has rejected this request, indicating that Apple was too late in making it, which would now lead to an unacceptable delay in the proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta stated in his decision that Apple’s motion was untimely and must be denied […]
“Apple knew (or should have known) that waiting two-and-a-half months to intervene in a proceeding scheduled to last just eight months overall would create significant delays,” Mehta pointed out, referring to his anticipated remedy decision in August 2025.
Mehta mentioned that there would not only be a direct delay due to the additional testimonies but also potential complications stemming from Apple not focusing solely on the issues raised, which could open the door to similar petitions from other companies like Samsung and AT&T that have comparable agreements with Google.
Nevertheless, the judge will allow Apple to submit an amicus brief for consideration during his final decision-making process. An amicus brief, which translates to “a friend of the court,” allows someone not directly involved in the trial to offer insights or information that may assist the judge.
Photo by Firmbee.com on Unsplash
FTC: We utilize income-generating auto affiliate links. More.
