Apple is defending Google’s ability to pay technology companies for distributing its search engine, putting the iPhone maker at odds with US antitrust regulators as a landmark competition case moves toward a federal appeals court hearing.
Apple submitted an amicus brief to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing that prohibiting such payments could disadvantage consumers and companies that provide access to Google’s search services, according to a report by RS Web Solutions.
The intervention comes as the US Department of Justice and several states challenge a lower court’s decision to allow Google to continue paying companies, including Apple and Mozilla, for search distribution despite a ruling that the company unlawfully maintained its dominance in online search.
Apple argues that eliminating compensation arrangements could effectively allow Google to benefit from access to users on third-party platforms without paying the companies responsible for providing that access, according to RSWEBSOLS.
The dispute highlights the financial and competitive importance of default search agreements, which determine which search engine users encounter when accessing the internet through smartphones, browsers and other digital platforms.
Apple Challenges Proposed Restrictions
Apple’s position centers on the commercial value of distributing search services and the potential consequences of prohibiting payments between Google and its partners.
According to RSWEBSOLS, Apple maintains that its existing arrangement with Google provides customers with a high-quality search experience while supporting a business relationship that benefits both companies.
The iPhone maker also disputes the suggestion that eliminating Google’s payments would encourage Apple to develop a competing general-purpose search engine.
Apple has indicated that building such a service would require substantial investment and that it has no plans to commit the resources necessary to enter the market, the publication reported.
The company’s argument presents a challenge to regulators seeking to reduce Google’s influence over search distribution. While the government views payments for default placement as a potential barrier to competition, Apple contends that banning them could impose financial costs on distribution partners without necessarily creating new competitors.
Regulators Seek Stronger Antitrust Remedies
The legal dispute dates to 2020, when the Justice Department and a coalition of states accused Google of using agreements with smartphone manufacturers and browser developers to protect its position in the online search market.
In August 2024, US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google had illegally maintained monopolies in general search services and general search text advertising, according to the RSWEBSOLS account.
The case subsequently moved into a remedies phase, with the court issuing an order in September 2025 intended to address the company’s anticompetitive conduct.
Under that order, Google must provide certain search data to qualifying competitors and make its search results and advertising syndication services available to rival businesses.
Related: US Supreme Court Rejects Google Appeal Over Patent Review Rules
The court also imposed six-year restrictions on exclusive distribution arrangements involving Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and Gemini.
However, the remedies stopped short of prohibiting Google from making payments to companies that distribute its search engine.
That distinction has become a central issue in the government’s appeal.
The Justice Department and participating states argue that Google’s financial resources, reinforced by its dominant market position, enable the company to secure default distribution agreements that make it harder for competing search providers to reach consumers.
Regulators are seeking stricter limitations on those arrangements, while Apple is urging the appeals court to preserve the ability of distribution partners to receive compensation.
Google Defends Its Business Practices
Google is separately appealing the underlying monopoly ruling and continues to defend its agreements with browser operators and device manufacturers.
The company maintains that distribution partners select its search engine because they believe it offers a better experience for users, rather than because the agreements are designed to exclude competitors, according to RSWEBSOLS.
Google characterizes those commercial relationships as legitimate competition.
The opposing positions underscore a fundamental disagreement over how competition should operate in the search market.
Federal regulators contend that Google’s established financial and distribution advantages can prevent smaller rivals from gaining sufficient exposure, even when competing services are available.
Google and Apple, meanwhile, argue that commercial agreements can reflect product preferences and the value that distribution partners provide.
The appeals court’s consideration of these arguments could influence how courts distinguish lawful distribution arrangements from practices that reinforce monopoly power.
Search Distribution Stakes Extend Beyond Big Tech
The outcome could carry implications for the broader digital advertising industry, where search engines play an important role in connecting businesses with potential customers.
Default search settings can influence which platforms consumers use, affecting search traffic, advertising opportunities and the ability of competing services to establish a market presence.
As RSWEBSOLS noted in its report, changes to the rules governing search distribution could therefore have consequences for marketers, advertisers and companies that depend on search engines to attract online audiences.
For Apple, the immediate concern is preserving the commercial framework that allows it to receive compensation for providing search distribution.
For Google, the stakes include maintaining access to distribution channels while challenging the court’s determination that its conduct violated antitrust law.
For regulators, the appeal represents an opportunity to pursue stronger measures intended to address barriers to competition in a market that remains central to the digital economy.
Oral arguments before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are scheduled for January 2027.
Source: RS Web Solutions
