The ongoing battle over default search deals caught my attention recently as critics argue these arrangements exclude competitors and restrict choice for users, advertisers, and rival companies.
The U.S. Justice Department, along with several states, is challenging a federal judge’s ruling regarding Google’s search antitrust case. They plan to appeal the decision made by the judge, which determined Google was illegally monopolizing search but didn’t impose significant changes like breaking up Chrome or stopping default search agreements completely.
What’s happening. Just yesterday, the DOJ and state attorneys general filed their appeals, focusing on U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s remedy ruling from September. Reports from Bloomberg and Reuters highlighted these developments.
Judge Mehta, back in August 2024, had found that Google unlawfully maintained its search monopoly through default search deals with companies like Apple and Samsung—deals costing Google over $20 billion every year.
Following a further remedies trial in 2025, Judge Mehta did not enforce the government’s suggestion to split up Chrome or halt payments for default search status. Instead, he required Google to rebid its default search and AI app agreements yearly.
Why we care. This appeal leaves me wondering just how much of a grip Google will retain on search placement. This control plays a crucial role in determining who gets traffic. Should stricter changes be implemented, it could alter default search settings, foster competition among search engines, and shift how we all engage with search across our devices.
Yes, but. So far, the DOJ and states haven’t revealed their exact legal strategies. The court submissions are vague about which aspects of the ruling are under fire, although Chrome and Google’s default deal with Apple are expected to be central points of contention.
What to watch. Later this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will examine the case, and I’m keen to see how it unfolds. For now, Google continues operating as usual, but its key contracts will face annual scrutiny, and the potential for harsher consequences looms.
What they’re saying. David Segal, VP of public policy at Yelp, expressed approval of the appeal. In a statement to Search Engine Land, Yelp criticized the trial court’s remedies as insufficient for reinvigorating competition in search:
“Unfortunately, the measures put forth in the trial court’s remedy decision are unlikely to restore competition — for instance, it allows for Google to continue to pay third parties for default placement in browsers and devices, which was the primary mechanism by which Google unlawfully foreclosed competition to begin with.
Internet users, online advertisers and others who rely on and seek to compete in the industry deserve a level playing field with more, higher quality, and fairer search options — and the need for a more competitive space is all the more clear as Google seeks to leverage its vast power over the web, especially search indexing and ranking, to come to dominate the GenAI space.”
Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
Leave a Reply