Apple urges DC Circuit to reject ban on Google search payments

Apple's argument

In its brief, Apple said prohibiting the payments would harm third-party businesses and consumers while potentially letting Google keep valuable default search positions for free. The company said its agreement with Google supports access to what it considers the highest-quality search product, and that distributors should not be expected to hand Google access to their users without compensation.

Apple also said it has no plans to commit the substantial resources needed to build its own general search engine, rejecting the argument that cutting the payments would produce a new rival.

Mozilla's warning

Mozilla made a sharper warning in its own friend-of-the-court brief. The Firefox developer said a payment ban "could force Mozilla (and other independent browser developers) to exit the browser and browser engine markets." It cited a study concluding its revenue would "decline dramatically" if it had to replace Google with Bing as Firefox's default search engine.

The government's position

The Justice Department and a coalition of states are asking the DC Circuit to reverse the part of the remedies order that allows the payments. Without a ban, Google "can continue leveraging its monopoly profits, which its unlawful conduct enhanced, to secure future search-default deals, keeping the ecosystem frozen," they argued in an appellate brief. They also said Judge Mehta should not have weighed the effect on Apple and Mozilla, arguing that short-term harm to distributors was no reason to withhold relief.

What Mehta ordered

Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in general search services and search text advertising, finding it charged "supracompetitive prices" for search text ads. His remedies order followed on 2 September 2025.

The order bars exclusive distribution deals for Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and Gemini for six years, requires Google to share search index and user-interaction data with qualified competitors, and puts default-search and AI app contracts on an annual rebidding cycle. Mehta declined to break up the company, ban the payments or order consumer choice screens. He said a payment ban "would have profound impacts on them and the related markets in which they operate."

Google's own appellate brief puts the payments to Apple at roughly $20 billion a year, covering the Safari default on iPhones, iPads and Macs. Sumit Sharma of NextGen Competition argued in a May 2026 analysis that no rival can outbid Google for those slots, a limit the district court acknowledged when it designed the remedies.

Google's parallel appeal

Google is separately appealing the liability finding and the data remedies. Its 111-page opening brief, filed on 22 May 2026, asks the DC Circuit to overturn the ruling and discard the data-sharing and syndication requirements. Google argued that the government never showed how much of its position came from the contracts rather than from product quality, MLex reported. It has also challenged the inclusion of AI services among the potential beneficiaries, according to Law360 reporting cited by PYMNTS. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's VP for regulatory affairs, said the August 2024 ruling "ignored the reality that people use Google because they want to, not because they're forced to."

The Justice Department and 38 states cross-appealed on 3 February 2026, pressing for the Chrome divestiture Mehta rejected. Google replies that the browser makers, not Google, chose a single out-of-the-box default, and that Apple and Mozilla were always free to promote rivals.

What happens next

Oral arguments before a three-judge DC Circuit panel are expected in January 2027. A final ruling could reach the Supreme Court and may not arrive until 2028. Mehta's order runs six years, so the default contracts come up for rebidding while the appeal is pending.