Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — A federal judge Monday denied a motion by Apple to intervene as a defendant in a looming remedy trial for fellow tech giant Google and its monopoly over the internet search market.
Apple made the request on Dec. 23, 2024, seeking to defend its “property interest” in a billion-dollar exclusivity contract with Google that makes the search engine the default option on its Safari browsers across its devices.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta explained in his ruling that Apple’s motion was untimely and thus he must deny the motion to intervene.
The Barack Obama appointee said that Apple should have known from the outset of the antitrust suit, filed in October 2020 during President Donald Trump’s first term in office, that the suit would “directly affect its contractual rights.”
Even then, Apple had ample opportunity as the case developed in recent months, Mehta said, specifically citing the Justice Department’s Oct. 9 remedy proposal that suggested a major breakup of Google and an end to billon-dollar default agreements.
Google paid Apple $26.3 billion in 2021 alone for its exclusive default status on Safari browsers.
“Apple knew (or should have known) that waiting two-and-a-half months to intervene in a proceeding scheduled to last just eight months altogether would constitute a significant delay,” Mehta said, referencing his expected remedy decision in August 2025.
The ruling comes as Mehta, Google and the Justice Department are preparing for the remedy phase of the antitrust trial, where the parties will attempt to craft an appropriate remedy for Google’s illegal monopoly over the internet search market and make it competitive again.
In an Oct. 9 proposal, the Justice Department suggested Mehta could order Google to divest key parts of its business, such as Google Chrome and its Android operating system to remedy its illegal monopoly.
On Dec. 20, Google urged Mehta to take caution while crafting the remedy, suggesting he could allow it to continue paying for its default status on search engines on a year-to-year basis, but also allow companies like Apple to set a different default browser on different devices and receive bids from other companies.
Apple argued that its intervention was necessary to ensure Mehta had a complete record necessary to “issue a fair and effective remedial decree.”
The company suggested it only required intervention on a limited basis to present three witnesses who could speak to any remedies related to Apple, as well as to file briefs and argue any issues that would impact it.
Such issues would include: Apples intentions regarding general search; the proposed remedies’ affects on Apple’s commercial relationship with Google and its customers; and the “rapidly evolving artificial intelligence landscape.”
In later arguments, Apple clarified that it was interested in proposing its own remedy, filing a post-hearing brief and participating in closing arguments.
In his order, Mehta said he doubted that Apple would be able to limit itself to only address certain issues and expressed concern that he would either have to defer to Apple’s judgment as to which testimony and remedies would affect the company or adjudicate each question as it arose.
Mehta said that granting Apple’s intervention request would throw a wrench into the court’s already extensive schedule for the remedy phase — which Google likened to directing air traffic at the Washington National Airport — adding several days of discovery, deposition and witness testimony.
Lastly, Mehta wrote that if he granted Apple’s request, he would open the flood gates for all other parties of Google’s search distribution agreements, like Samsung and AT&T, to also move to intervene. Such a decision would cause both the DOJ and Google to suffer substantial prejudice, Mehta said.
However, Mehta added that he would allow Apple to participate as an amicus curiae and file post-hearing submissions in the coming months to “ensure consideration of Apple’s views when crafting the remedial decree.”
Apple, Google, and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.
Follow @Ryan_KnappySubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.