Google has paid Apple roughly $20 billion per year to be the default search engine on iPhones and Safari. In August 2024, a federal judge ruled this arrangement—and similar deals with Samsung and others—constituted an illegal monopoly. Now both sides are appealing: the Department of Justice wants Google broken up, while Google wants the entire case thrown out.
The stakes extend beyond search. As AI chatbots like ChatGPT and Perplexity begin to replace traditional search queries, whoever controls the default AI assistant on billions of devices may inherit Google's dominance. The remedies ordered—data sharing with competitors, a ban on exclusive default deals, and six years of oversight—could reshape how users find information online for decades.
Click a figure to generate their perspective on this story
Debate Arena
Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.
Choose Your Battle
Watch two AI personas debate this story using real evidence
Make predictions and set the crossfire to earn XP and cred
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
SIDE A (PRO)
Select debater for this side:
✓
SIDE B (CON)
Select debater for this side:
✓
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate
VS
Get ready to make your prediction...
Round of
Claim
Evidence
Stakes
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Claim
Evidence
Stakes
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Your Crossfire Question
Generating arguments...
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
Correct predictions earn +20 XP
Evidence
40%
Logic
30%
Detail
20%
Style
10%
Round Results
Your Pick!
+20 XP
Your Pick
Not this time
Evidence (40%)
Logic (30%)
Detail (20%)
Style (10%)
Overall Score
/10
Your Pick!
+20 XP
Your Pick
Not this time
Evidence (40%)
Logic (30%)
Detail (20%)
Style (10%)
Overall Score
/10
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Crafting crossfire questions...
Choosing a question earns +10 XP crossfire bonus
🏆
Total XP Earned
Cred Change
Predictions
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Base completion+20 XP
Rounds played ( rounds x 5 XP)
+ XP
Correct predictions ( correct x 20 XP)
+ XP
Crossfire bonus+10 XP
Accuracy
%
Prediction History
Round
You picked:
✓✗
Keep debating to level up your credibility and unlock achievements
People Involved
Amit Mehta
U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia (Presiding over case; issued liability and remedies rulings)
Kent Walker
President of Global Affairs, Google (Leading Google's legal response and appeal strategy)
Phil Weiser
Colorado Attorney General (Co-leading 35-state coalition appealing for stronger remedies)
Jonathan Skrmetti
Tennessee Attorney General (Co-leading state coalition pursuing stronger Google remedies)
Sundar Pichai
Chief Executive Officer, Alphabet and Google (Testified in remedies trial; overseeing appeal strategy)
Organizations Involved
U.
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Federal Agency
Status: Lead plaintiff; appealing for Chrome divestiture
The DOJ Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust laws and brought the original complaint against Google in October 2020.
GO
Google
Technology Company
Status: Defendant; appealing both liability finding and remedies
Google operates the dominant search engine globally and is the defendant in multiple DOJ antitrust cases.
U.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Federal Appeals Court
Status: Will hear both Google and DOJ appeals
The D.C. Circuit is considered the second most powerful court in the United States and will review Judge Mehta's rulings.
Timeline
DOJ and States File Cross-Appeal
Legal
Department of Justice and 35 state attorneys general file appeal seeking Chrome divestiture and complete ban on default search payments.
Google Challenges Data Sharing
Legal
Google files separate appeal specifically challenging six-year data-sharing mandate as government overreach.
Google Files Appeal
Legal
Google files notice of appeal challenging liability ruling, arguing search dominance reflects product quality rather than anticompetitive conduct.
Final Remedies Order Issued
Ruling
Mehta finalizes remedies including Technical Committee appointment, data-sharing specifications, and 180-day implementation timeline.
Judge Rejects Chrome Divestiture
Ruling
Mehta issues 95-page remedies opinion rejecting structural breakup but ordering data sharing with competitors, ban on exclusive default deals, and six-year oversight.
Remedies Trial Concludes
Trial
Final arguments presented; Google warns proposed remedies would require diverting 1,000-2,000 employees from search development.
Remedies Trial Opens
Trial
Three-week evidentiary hearing begins with testimony from Google CEO Sundar Pichai, search head Liz Reid, and executives from competitors including DuckDuckGo and OpenAI.
Kanter Steps Down
Personnel
DOJ Antitrust Division chief Jonathan Kanter announces resignation effective December 20, leaving case leadership in transition.
DOJ Proposes Chrome Divestiture
Legal
Department of Justice files proposed remedies including forced sale of Chrome browser and potential Android divestiture, plus ban on default search payments.
Google Found Liable for Illegal Monopoly
Ruling
Judge Mehta rules Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining illegal monopoly in search and search advertising through exclusive default agreements.
$20 Billion Payment Revealed
Disclosure
Court documents reveal Google paid Apple $20 billion in 2022 alone to maintain default search status on Safari and iOS devices.
Liability Trial Begins
Trial
Ten-week trial opens in Washington D.C. with testimony from Google executives, Apple representatives, and search competitors.
Cases Consolidated
Legal
District court consolidates DOJ and state cases for pretrial purposes under Judge Amit Mehta.
38-State Coalition Joins Lawsuit
Legal
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser leads bipartisan coalition of 38 state attorneys general in filing separate lawsuit, later consolidated with DOJ case.
DOJ Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google
Legal
The Department of Justice and 11 state attorneys general file complaint alleging Google illegally maintained search monopoly through exclusive default agreements with Apple, Samsung, and others.
Scenarios
1
D.C. Circuit Orders Chrome Sale, Reshaping Search Market
Discussed by: American Prospect, Public Knowledge, and antitrust scholars at American Enterprise Institute have analyzed this outcome
The appeals court reverses Mehta's structural remedy rejection, finding behavioral remedies insufficient to restore competition. Chrome divestiture creates an independent browser company that could partner with Bing, DuckDuckGo, or AI search startups. Default search deals become genuinely competitive auctions. This would reduce Google's search share by 10-15 percentage points over five years as competitors gain distribution.
2
Appeals Court Affirms Mehta, Remedies Proceed as Ordered
Discussed by: Legal analysts at Winston & Strawn and DLA Piper view this as the most probable outcome
The D.C. Circuit upholds both the liability finding and behavioral remedies while rejecting calls for divestiture. Google implements data sharing with approved competitors, exclusive default deals end, and the Technical Committee monitors compliance through 2031. Impact on Google's market share remains modest—perhaps 3-5 percentage points—as the company adapts within the behavioral constraints.
3
Google Wins Appeal, Liability Finding Overturned
Discussed by: International Center for Law & Economics and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation have outlined this possibility
The D.C. Circuit finds Judge Mehta erred in his market definition or monopoly analysis, overturning the liability finding entirely. Google escapes all remedies, default deals continue unchanged, and the case becomes a cautionary tale about antitrust enforcement limitations in fast-moving tech markets. The DOJ may seek Supreme Court review, extending uncertainty for years.
4
Supreme Court Takes Case, Creates New Antitrust Standards
Discussed by: Brookings Institution and Harvard Law Review have examined potential Supreme Court interest
Either party seeks certiorari after the D.C. Circuit rules; the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case given its significance for tech platform regulation. The Court establishes new standards for digital market antitrust analysis, potentially affecting ongoing cases against Apple, Amazon, and Meta. Final resolution extends to 2028 or beyond, while remedies remain stayed.
Historical Context
United States v. Microsoft (1998-2001)
May 1998 - November 2001
What Happened
The DOJ and 20 states sued Microsoft for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to crush Netscape Navigator. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found Microsoft liable and ordered the company broken into two pieces—one for Windows, one for applications. Microsoft controlled 95% of the PC operating system market.
Outcome
Short Term
The D.C. Circuit upheld the liability finding but overturned the breakup order in 2001, finding Jackson had shown bias. A consent decree imposed behavioral remedies including API sharing requirements.
Long Term
Microsoft avoided structural breakup but was constrained during the critical 2001-2011 period when Google, Facebook, and mobile platforms emerged. Many analysts credit the antitrust pressure with preventing Microsoft from dominating web search and social media.
Why It's Relevant Today
The Microsoft case provides the closest template for Google's appeal. The D.C. Circuit's 2001 decision—affirming liability while rejecting divestiture—may influence how judges evaluate structural versus behavioral remedies for tech monopolies.
AT&T Breakup (1974-1984)
November 1974 - January 1984
What Happened
The DOJ sued AT&T, which controlled 80% of U.S. telephone lines, over anticompetitive practices in equipment manufacturing and long-distance service. After eight years of litigation, AT&T agreed to divest its 22 local operating companies, creating seven independent 'Baby Bells' while retaining long-distance service and Bell Labs.
Outcome
Short Term
The January 1984 divestiture reduced AT&T's book value by 70%. Local phone service remained regulated monopolies while long-distance became competitive.
Long Term
Competition in long-distance drove prices down dramatically. Sprint and MCI emerged as viable competitors. The Baby Bells later reconsolidated through mergers, with Verizon and AT&T (reformed from SBC) now dominant.
Why It's Relevant Today
AT&T remains the only successful structural breakup of a major technology monopoly. DOJ's Chrome divestiture proposal echoes this approach, though Judge Mehta rejected it as too complex given Chrome's integration with Google's systems.
EU Google Shopping Case (2017)
November 2010 - June 2017
What Happened
The European Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for favoring its own shopping comparison service in search results over competitors like Foundem and Kelkoo. The Commission found Google abused its search dominance to direct traffic to Google Shopping.
Outcome
Short Term
Google paid the fine and implemented a remedy allowing competing shopping services to bid for placement in search results.
Long Term
Critics argue the remedy was ineffective—Google Shopping retained dominant market share while competitors saw minimal benefit from the auction system. The EU has since pursued additional Google cases involving Android and advertising.
Why It's Relevant Today
The EU case illustrates the challenge of behavioral remedies against platform monopolies. The DOJ's appeal argues Mehta's data-sharing remedy risks similar ineffectiveness without structural changes like Chrome divestiture.
