A U.S. federal court has delivered its remedies ruling in the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google, confirming that Apple’s lucrative search partnership with Google remains unaffected. Last year, Judge Amit Mehta found that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in search and advertising. In the remedies decision, however, the court stopped short of forcing major structural changes. Google must share some search data with competitors, but it will not be required to spin off Chrome or Android, and it can continue paying Apple to remain the default search engine in Safari.
For Apple, this outcome means its lucrative deal with Google remains untouched. Analysts estimate Google pays between $15 billion and $20 billion annually to secure default placement on Safari across iPhone, iPad, and Mac. The payments are a critical part of Apple’s services revenue, which the company has emphasized as a growth driver beyond hardware sales. Regulators chose not to interfere with this arrangement, ensuring the partnership stays in place.
The decision sparked strong reactions from lawmakers and industry critics. Senator Amy Klobuchar called the ruling a reminder of Google’s sweeping influence, but argued that “the limited remedies ordered by the court demonstrate why we need additional rules of the road for Big Tech.” She pushed for her bipartisan American Innovation and Choice Online Act to prevent dominant platforms from unfairly preferring their own products.
DuckDuckGo CEO Gabriel Weinberg was more blunt, stating: “Google will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search. As a result, consumers will continue to suffer.” Danielle Coffey, president of the News/Media Alliance, said publishers are being forced into a “no-win scenario” by having to let Google use their content in AI products in order to remain visible in search results. The Tech Oversight Project’s Sacha Haworth criticized Judge Mehta’s approach, arguing that “rather than doing the hard thing, Judge Mehta was far more willing to let Google continue bending the internet and our economy to its will.”
Nidhi Hegde of the American Economic Liberties Project described the ruling as “judicial cowardice,” saying that while the court acknowledged Google’s monopoly, it left “its power almost fully intact.”
Supporters of the outcome took the opposite stance. The Computer & Communications Industry Association praised the court for rejecting the DOJ’s push to break up Chrome and Android, calling the government’s proposal an overreach. But even supportive groups warned that mandatory data-sharing could create risks around privacy and national security depending on how it is enforced.
For now, the deal between Apple and Google remains unaffected, keeping Safari defaults unchanged for hundreds of millions of users. Critics believe remedies must go further to restore competition, especially as Google’s dominance extends into generative AI search. Google plans to appeal the earlier ruling that labeled it a monopolist, meaning the legal fight is far from over. But in the meantime, Apple continues to benefit from one of the most profitable arrangements in tech history.
