Google’s $20B Safari search deal with Apple was ‘fair and square’
AI-summarised brief · reviewed before publication
Google insists its $20B search engine preference deal with Apple was "fair and square" in its antitrust appeal against the Department of Justice. A court ruled in August 2024 that Google was a monopolist, involving an investigation into the deal to make Google the preferred search engine of Safari. Google filed its appeal on May 22, claiming Judge Amit Mehta made legal errors in his 2024 ruling. Google believes it did nothing to harm competition and didn't block rivals or Apple from choosing a better option. The company points to Apple's conclusion that Microsoft's Bing was "inferior" and notes Safari lists alternative search engines. Google aims to reverse the ruling, which currently requires it to share search data with competitors. The appeal discusses the application of this requirement to AI companies, which Google argues shouldn't be classed as rivals.
💡 Why It Matters
- · Google's appeal challenges the court's interpretation of "exclusivity" in its deal with Apple, arguing it was for "sound business reasons".
- · The outcome could set a precedent for how tech companies collaborate and compete in the search engine market, particularly with emerging AI technologies.
