{"id":68334,"date":"2026-05-22T23:42:17","date_gmt":"2026-05-22T21:42:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=68334"},"modified":"2026-05-22T23:42:58","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T21:42:58","slug":"google-appeal-antitrust-ruling-apple-search","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/google-berufung-antitrust-urteil-apple-suche","title":{"rendered":"Google appeals: Apple chose Google Search \"fairly and honestly\""},"content":{"rendered":"

Google has appealed the 2024 antitrust ruling that declared the company a monopolist due to its billions of dollars in payments to Apple and other partners for its position as the default search engine. In its appeal to the US Court of Appeals, Google argues that it earned its market position through innovation, investment, and hard work.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With this appeal, one of the most important antitrust cases in recent US tech history enters its next phase. At its heart is once again the years-long agreement between Google and Apple, under which Google pays Apple billions of dollars annually to be the default search engine on iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Last year, Judge Mehta ruled that the partnership between Apple and Google could continue despite antitrust proceedings<\/a> \u2013 the appeal now filed targets the remaining conditions imposed by those very proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google's core argument before the appeals court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In its filing with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Google maintains that the district court erred in attributing Google's search success to anything other than "competition on a performance basis." The company argues that there is neither evidence nor a finding that Google's customers would have chosen a competitor even without the disputed agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Google succinctly summarizes the central point regarding the Apple agreement: Apple was free to distribute and promote competing search engines. The company explicitly points out that Apple offers alternative search options in Safari's settings. Therefore, any perceived exclusivity was Apple's own decision based on \"sound business reasons.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What's at stake<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Google is demanding the lifting of all conditions imposed on the company by the original ruling. These conditions primarily concern three points: sharing search data, providing information about user interactions, and syndicating search results to competing companies. Without a successful appeal, Google must implement these obligations. During the proceedings, Apple executive Eddy Cue also caused a stir when he testified that Google searches via Safari were declining for the first time<\/a> \u2013 a statement that Google itself publicly denied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Google aims to overturn the entire ruling, there's an additional thrust: Even if the restrictions remain in place, generative AI companies like OpenAI should be explicitly excluded from data sharing. Google's argument: AI products "didn't even exist" during the period covered by the DoJ ruling. Therefore, it makes no sense to provide them with search data now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AI companies as a new point of contention<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Google is taking an aggressive stance on this issue, arguing that AI providers are \"already as successful as almost any other technology in human history\" - without needing to replicate Google's success. This phrasing reveals that Google views the competition for AI data as a separate front, where search data is considered a strategic asset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For search engine competitors on the one hand and AI providers on the other, this means: While competing search engines could be legitimate recipients of data from Google's point of view, AI models should be excluded from the same data pool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Apple-Google deal remains permitted for now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The current ruling does not pose any new risks to the Apple-Google deal. The court had already decided that Google can continue to pay Apple billions for the default search ranking, as long as the agreement is not exclusive. Google is only prohibited from entering into exclusive contracts for search engine placement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple itself plays no direct role in the proceedings, but benefits directly from the continued existence of the agreement. The annual payment has been one of Apple's most important sources of service revenue for years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the appointment means for Apple<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of the appeals court's decision, Apple's search engine business model remains stable for the time being. Even an upholding of the ruling doesn't change Apple's right to choose Google as its default search engine and accept payment for it - only exclusivity is excluded. A successful appeal by Google, on the other hand, would reverse the restrictions surrounding data sharing and cement Google's market position, from which Apple also financially benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is unclear when the appeals court will decide. Antitrust proceedings at this level typically drag on for many months, and in some cases, years. (Image: Shutterstock \/ YueStock)<\/p>\n\n\n\n