Google Appeals Search Monopoly Ruling, Citing Apple's Rejection of 'Inferior' Bing

Google has formally appealed a federal court ruling that designated the company an illegal search monopolist, arguing the original decision punishes lawful competition and misinterprets its multibillion-dollar default search agreements. In a brief filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Google is seeking to overturn both the August 2024 liability ruling and a September 2025 remedies order requiring it to share certain search data and syndicate search results with rivals.



The appeal pushes back aggressively against claims that Google's distribution contracts harmed competition. A central focus is the Internet Services Agreement between Google and Apple, which set Google as the default search engine in Safari across the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. According to the filing, the arrangement reflected competition on the merits, with Apple choosing Google because it offered the best search experience and highest revenue potential.


Drawing heavily from trial testimony, the brief notes that Apple executives described selecting Google as a "no brainer" because it had "the best search engine." It also highlights Apple's criticism of Microsoft's Bing, which executives characterized as inferior and poor at monetizing advertising. Google maintains that it never prevented Apple from promoting rival search engines and says Apple independently designed Safari around a single default search engine to provide a consistent experience across devices.

The company also challenges the legal framework used by Judge Amit P. Mehta to determine antitrust liability. In the filing, Google says the district court applied the wrong standard for evaluating exclusionary conduct, effectively penalizing the company because its product and pricing made it difficult for rivals to compete. Browser makers, it argues, remained free to distribute and promote competing search engines, while Safari users could manually switch defaults or access rivals through bookmarks and direct navigation.

Another major dispute centers on market definition. Google contends the ruling improperly excluded specialized search platforms such as Amazon and Expedia from the competitive landscape. The filing states those services directly compete with Google for valuable commercial queries involving shopping, travel, and other monetizable searches.

Google also takes aim at the remedies imposed by the district court. The order requires the company to provide certain competitors with access to search data, portions of its search index, and syndicated search results. The brief describes those measures as an improper transfer of infrastructure and investments built over decades, while specifically objecting to extending the remedies to generative AI firms.


The filing further states that products such as ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity did not exist during the period examined by the court and are already achieving rapid growth independently. The dispute arrives as Apple prepares to open iOS 27 to third-party AI assistants and use Google's Gemini models for portions of its next-generation Siri platform.

The Department of Justice and a coalition of states are simultaneously pursuing a cross-appeal, arguing the original remedies did not go far enough. The government continues to seek broader structural changes, including the potential divestiture of Chrome.