Short answer: On August 5, 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google illegally maintained monopolies in general search services and general search text advertising. Google’s agreements making it the default search engine—including its revenue-sharing arrangement with Apple—were central evidence of exclusionary conduct. Trial evidence put Google’s Apple payment at approximately $20 billion in 2022 alone. The ruling did not make Apple a defendant, immediately erase the agreement, or categorically ban Google from paying Apple. A 2025 remedies judgment restricted exclusivity and related contract terms, and the case remains on appeal in 2026.
What Judge Mehta actually ruled
The August 5, 2024 decision was a liability ruling, not the final set of remedies. Judge Mehta found that Google possessed monopoly power in two relevant markets—general search services and general search text advertising—and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by using exclusionary distribution agreements and related conduct to maintain those monopolies. The Department of Justice case page tracks the litigation and later orders.
The legal conclusion was broader than “Google paid Apple, therefore the payment was illegal.” The court examined Google’s network of agreements with device makers, browsers and other distributors, and the way those arrangements affected rivals’ access to important user entry points. Apple’s agreement was a major part of that evidence.
How the Apple search agreement worked
Google was the preselected general search engine in Safari on Apple devices, including iPhone, iPad and Mac. In exchange for the distribution arrangement, Google shared search-revenue proceeds with Apple. A D.C. Circuit opinion records an Apple payment of approximately $20 billion for 2022 alone: read the court opinion.
#1 Best Overall
| Term | What it means here |
|---|---|
| Default placement | Google appears as the preselected search engine when a user searches through Safari. |
| Distribution agreement | A contract governing how a search engine is presented or made available through a device, browser or other channel. |
| Exclusivity | Contract terms that limit a partner’s ability to distribute or promote competing search, browser or AI products, or make Google’s position difficult to challenge. |
| User choice | A person may generally select another search engine manually; technical ability to switch does not by itself resolve the competitive effect of the default. |
Why defaults matter in search competition
The government’s and court’s theory was that defaults influence behavior at enormous scale. Most people do not change preselected settings, so a default can deliver a large stream of queries, users, advertising demand and feedback to one provider. More usage can support better search results and stronger monetization, which in turn can make it harder for a rival to obtain enough volume to compete effectively.
That theory does not mean every default arrangement is unlawful. The analysis concerned Google’s market power, the structure and duration of its contracts, restrictions on rival access, and the cumulative effect of agreements covering critical distribution channels.
Was Apple found liable?
No—not in the main case described by the headline. The principal action, United States and plaintiff states v. Google LLC, was brought against Google. Apple’s agreement and testimony from Apple executives were evidence in the case; Judge Mehta did not enter the August 2024 monopoly judgment against Apple. Apple later participated in related proceedings to protect its interests. A separate DOJ case page covers the Google-and-Apple matter: DOJ’s case information.
What the $20 billion figure does—and does not—say
- It refers to approximately $20 billion paid to Apple in 2022, according to trial evidence discussed by the D.C. Circuit.
- It is not, on the cited record, a guaranteed current annual payment.
- It is not automatically the total value of the contract.
- It does not mean Apple kept the entire amount as profit; the figure describes a payment, not Apple’s net economics.
What changed in the 2025 remedies judgment?
After a remedies trial in April and May 2025, the court issued remedies on September 2, 2025 and entered a final judgment on December 5, 2025. The DOJ’s announcement and the final judgment text describe the operative restrictions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesRestrictions on exclusivity and tying
- Google may not enter or maintain certain exclusive distribution arrangements involving Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant or Gemini.
- Google may not condition licensing one covered Google product on a partner’s distributing or preloading another covered product.
- Partners may not be barred from simultaneously distributing competing search engines, browsers or generative-AI products.
Limits on payment conditions
Google may not condition revenue-share payments on keeping Google Search—or certain other Google products—as the default for more than one year. That limits how payment arrangements can be structured, but it is not a blanket prohibition on paying Apple. Whether a particular Apple contract complies depends on its terms and the judgment’s application.
Access for qualifying rivals
The judgment also requires Google to provide specified data and search-advertising syndication access to qualifying competitors, giving rivals tools intended to reduce the advantages created by Google’s scale.
The court rejected more sweeping structural relief, including a forced Chrome divestiture. The remedy therefore relies primarily on behavioral and access requirements rather than breaking Google into separate companies.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What could change for iPhone, iPad and Mac users?
The liability ruling did not automatically change Safari. Possible future effects include a more prominent choice screen, easier selection of competing search engines, or changes to how defaults are negotiated and displayed. Those outcomes depend on compliance proceedings, contract revisions, stays and the appeals process.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Best Value
- Possible benefit: rivals could gain better access to Apple and other major distribution channels.
- Possible cost: additional prompts or settings could add interface friction.
- What is not guaranteed: users will not necessarily lose Google Search, receive a new default immediately, or see Apple launch its own search engine.
What it could mean for Apple’s business
Search-revenue sharing has been financially significant to Apple’s Services business, but the legal record does not establish that Apple will lose the entire payment. Depending on the final outcome, Apple could face reduced or restructured payments, seek alternative search, advertising or AI partnerships, or retain leverage if Google remains the most-used or highest-quality option. It could also incur costs to support more choices and comply with revised distribution rules.
Google’s defense and the live appeals
Google argues that users choose its search product because they prefer its quality, and that Apple and other partners select Google for the experience it provides. Google also argues that defaults do not prevent switching and that the trial court discounted evidence of competition and product quality. Google announced an appeal in January 2026; its position is set out in its official appeal statement.
The DOJ and plaintiff states are seeking broader relief. Their July 28, 2026 appellate filing and related materials are listed on the DOJ appellate briefs page. As of August 18, 2026, the appellate process remains active, so the liability finding and remedy are not beyond further judicial review.
What the ruling did not decide
- It did not find Apple liable in the main Google monopoly case.
- It did not declare every search-default agreement illegal.
- It did not immediately require Google to stop paying Apple.
- It did not require Apple to build a search engine.
- It did not require consumers to choose a new default immediately.
- It did not order Google to break up or sell Chrome.
- It did not establish that the 2022 payment is a current fixed annual amount.
The Bottom Line
The accurate current description is narrower than the headline: Judge Mehta’s 2024 ruling found that Google unlawfully maintained search monopolies, with the Apple default-search agreement serving as important evidence. The 2025 judgment restricted exclusivity and payment conditions without banning all Apple payments, and Google’s appeal and the government’s cross-appeal keep the case unresolved in 2026.
Recommended Free Tools
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
