Google lost the monopoly ruling, but it is now asking an appeals court to treat its Safari default deal with Apple as evidence of competition — not proof that competition was blocked.
In a filing made today, Google appealed the antitrust ruling against its search business and defended its long-running Apple agreement as lawful distribution competition, according to 9to5Mac. The core tension is simple: Google pays Apple billions for Safari placement, yet argues Apple chose Google because it was the best and most profitable option, not because rivals were shut out.
That is the question now moving up the courts: when does paying to be the default become paying to prevent competition?
Google says Apple picked the best product; the court saw monopoly maintenance
The appeal targets the August 2024 ruling in which Judge Amit Mehta found Google had illegally maintained monopolies in general search and search advertising.
“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”
Google is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse that ruling in full. Its argument has several parts: the district court allegedly defined the search markets too narrowly, wrongly treated browser agreements as exclusionary, and imposed remedies that force Google to share search data and results with rivals.
The Apple deal sits at the center of that fight because it turns an abstract antitrust theory into a very concrete business arrangement. Apple made Google Search the default in Safari on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. In exchange, Apple received 36% of the search advertising revenue generated through Safari. Court documents showed Google paid Apple around $20 billion in 2022 alone.
Google’s defense is not that the deal was small. It is that the deal was earned.
As the district court found, the browser-makers chose Google because they “value its quality, and they continue to select Google as the default because its search engine provides the best bet for monetizing queries.”
Google also cited Apple’s own characterization of the decision. Apple described choosing Google as a “no brainer” because it was “a sure thing. They have the best search engine, they know how to advertise, and they’re monetizing really well.” Bing, by contrast, was “horrible at monetizing advertising.”
That framing matters. Google wants the appellate court to see the Safari contract as a competitive win for premium placement. The district court saw the same distribution machinery as part of how Google preserved search dominance.
The Safari deal survived — but the version that survived is weaker
The remedies ruling did not ban Google from paying Apple. That was a major win for both companies.
As The Verge reported, Judge Mehta ruled that Google would not be barred from making payments for preloading or placement of Google Search, Chrome, or its GenAI products. He also declined to force Google to divest Chrome or Android, and did not require Google choice screens.
But the surviving Apple deal is not the old deal.
Under the remedies described by 9to5Mac, Google can no longer make the Safari agreement exclusive or stop Apple from promoting rival search engines or generative AI products. The court also imposed a 12-month default limit, meaning Google cannot condition revenue sharing on keeping any Google service as the default for more than 1 year.
That changes the economics without blowing up the contract.
| Before remedies | After remedies |
|---|---|
| Google defaulted in Safari across iPhone, iPad, and Mac | Google can still pay for default placement |
| 36% revenue share from Safari search ads | Revenue sharing cannot be conditioned on a default lasting more than 1 year |
| Long-running arrangement with Apple | Rivals get a yearly opening to pitch Apple |
| Google could benefit from default durability | Google cannot make the Safari agreement exclusive or block Apple from promoting rivals |
MLXIO analysis: this is the court’s compromise. It avoided a broad payment ban that could have hit Apple and other distribution partners hard, but it tried to make the default contestable at regular intervals. That is narrower than the government’s most aggressive remedies, but it still cuts into the durability that made the Apple arrangement so valuable.
Eddy Cue’s Microsoft testimony is Google’s strongest fact pattern
Google’s most useful evidence may be Apple executive Eddy Cue’s testimony about Microsoft’s attempt to replace Google as Safari’s default.
According to Google’s filing, Microsoft offered Apple 100% of search advertising revenues generated if Bing became the Safari default. Apple still believed it would earn less, because users would abandon Bing for Google.
Given users’ strong preference for Google, there was “‘no price that Microsoft could ever offer [Apple]’” to make Bing the default that would be more profitable for Apple.
Cue also testified that “we have to pick what’s best for our customers, and today, that is still Google.”
For Google, that testimony attacks the exclusion theory directly. If Apple would not take even 100% of Bing search ad revenue, Google argues the problem was not foreclosure. The problem was Bing’s weaker monetization and user preference.
For regulators, the same testimony can cut another way. It shows how powerful default placement becomes when paired with an incumbent that users already prefer and that monetizes better. A rival may offer richer economics on paper and still lose because the default holder can out-earn it in practice.
That is why this case is not only about whether users can switch in Safari settings. Google says alternatives remain available. The antitrust question is whether technical availability is enough when the default channel carries enormous commercial weight.
Apple’s broader control over user pathways is also playing out across software and device features, as seen in MLXIO’s coverage of Shortcuts Playground and Apple automation with natural language and Android’s Handoff-style cross-device push. The Safari search fight is narrower, but it sits inside the same platform-control debate.
This is not just a browser-default case anymore
The appeal also reaches into AI search.
The remedies barred Google from preventing Apple from promoting rival search engines or generative AI products. Separately, reporting on the filing says Google wants generative AI companies such as OpenAI excluded from receiving search data, arguing that AI products “did not even exist” during the period covered in the DOJ’s case and are already succeeding without access to Google’s data.
That argument reveals the next front. Search distribution is no longer only about ten blue links or keyword ads. Safari can become a gateway for classic search engines, AI answer products, and hybrid discovery tools. If Apple can promote alternatives more freely, the default slot becomes less static.
MLXIO analysis: the most important remedy may not be the ability to pay Apple. It may be the annual contest. A 12-month limit forces Google to keep defending its position with product quality, monetization, and commercial terms. It also gives Apple recurring optionality: keep Google, test a rival, promote an AI product, or restructure how Safari introduces search choices.
That does not mean rivals automatically win. The source record points the other way: Apple believed even Microsoft’s 100% revenue offer would underperform because users would switch back to Google. Quality, habit, and monetization still matter.
Google can delay the remedy fight, but not restore the old certainty
Google’s appeal may slow or reshape the remedies. Oral arguments have not been scheduled, and the company is seeking reversal of the entire antitrust ruling. It also wants relief from obligations to share search data and results with competitors.
The scenarios are now fairly clear:
- Google wins broadly: the monopoly ruling and remedies could be reversed or sharply narrowed.
- Google wins partially: the Apple deal may remain largely intact, but some conduct limits survive.
- Google loses: the 12-month default limit, non-exclusivity rules, and data-sharing obligations become the operating reality.
- A narrower remedy structure emerges: default payments survive, but with more contestability and tighter rules around rivals.
For investors and operators, the watch item is not whether the Safari deal disappears overnight. The court has already allowed payments to continue. The sharper question is whether default placement remains routine business development for dominant platforms, or becomes a recurring legal risk that has to be renegotiated, justified, and re-competed every year.
Evidence that would strengthen Google’s appeal thesis: Apple continuing to choose Google after annual competition from rivals, especially if higher revenue offers fail again. Evidence that would weaken it: proof that rivals can win user adoption when Apple is freer to promote them, or that Google’s payments materially suppress viable alternatives.
The Safari deal may survive in some form. The old assumption behind it — that default access is just plumbing — is what now looks exposed.
Impact Analysis
- The appeal could redefine when default placement deals become illegal exclusionary conduct.
- Apple’s 36% Safari search ad revenue share shows how financially significant default search agreements are.
- A reversal or upheld ruling could reshape search competition, browser deals, and antitrust remedies across tech.
