Google on May 22, 2026 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse in full an antitrust ruling that found the company illegally maintained monopolies in general search and search advertising.

The appeal targets U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta's August 2024 decision for the District of Columbia, which held that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

What did the lower court decide?

Judge Mehta concluded after trial: "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act."

Google paid Apple roughly $20 billion in 2022 to remain the default search engine in Safari on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Apple keeps 36% of search advertising revenue generated through Safari traffic.

At the remedies stage, Mehta let Google keep paying Apple for placement but restricted the agreement's structure. Google can no longer make the Safari deal exclusive and cannot block Apple from promoting rival search engines or generative AI products.

The judge also capped default-payment terms at 12 months. That structure hands Google's competitors a yearly opportunity to outbid the company for Safari placement.

What is Google arguing on appeal?

Google's brief contends the district court committed legal errors on three grounds:

• Treating Google's browser default agreements as exclusionary conduct
• Defining the relevant search markets too narrowly
• Imposing remedies that force Google to share search data and results with rivals

The filing describes the Apple arrangement as the product of competition on quality, not an anticompetitive exclusive deal. Google quotes the trial record on why browser-makers keep selecting its engine:

"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.'"

Why does Google invoke Apple's testimony?

Google leans heavily on Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of Services, who told the court that Apple picked 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," Cue said.

Even when Microsoft offered Apple 100% of search advertising revenue to make Bing the default, Apple concluded users would defect from Bing back to Google. Cue quoted Microsoft's position as offering "'no price that Microsoft could ever offer [Apple]'" that would generate equal profit.

Cue argued in testimony that "we have to pick what's best for our customers, and today, that is still Google."

How does Google frame the market?

Google argues the district court drew the relevant markets too tightly. The company stresses that Safari's single-default design reflects Apple's product choice, not Google's contractual demand.

Rival search engines remain reachable through Safari's settings menu, the brief notes. Google treats the default-payment arrangement as one commercial deal among many, rather than a foreclosure of the search market.

What does the appeal change for practitioners?

The remedies Mehta imposed, including the exclusivity ban and 12-month payment cap, remain in force while the DC Circuit reviews Google's challenge.

A full reversal would clear the way for Google to renegotiate the Apple arrangement on less restrictive terms. A partial affirmance could leave the remedies intact while sending specific provisions back to the district court.

The case carries weight beyond Google and Apple. Any browser-maker that takes a share of search ad revenue in exchange for default placement now operates against a structured ceiling on exclusivity and contract length.