Apple blocked from presenting at Google antitrust hearing where $20 billion search deal is at stake

The Verge - Mar 26th, 2025

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Apple's attempt to participate in the federal antitrust trial against Google, which could threaten Apple's lucrative search exclusivity agreement with Google. Apple had sought to intervene in the remedies phase of the trial, but the court ruled that Apple's request was filed too late. This decision upholds a prior ruling by US District Court Judge Amit Mehta. Apple, which filed its motion on December 23rd for a case that began in 2020, will now have to rely on external briefs to express its concerns about the potential impact on its search deal, valued at $18 billion in 2021 and $20 billion in 2022.

This development comes in the wake of the Department of Justice's victory in an antitrust case against Google, where the company was found to hold a monopoly over search and advertising markets. The court is now in the process of determining appropriate remedies, which could include the DOJ's proposed measures for Google to divest from its Chrome browser and adjust its Android business practices. The ruling poses significant implications for Apple's future arrangements with Google, as it could lose the ability to secure similar exclusive deals. Meanwhile, the DOJ has adjusted its proposed final judgment to allow Google to pay Apple for non-search-related services, potentially mitigating some concerns for Apple.

Apple Google Department Of Justice Dc Circuit Court Of Appeals Amit Mehta Antitrust Trial Search Exclusivity Deal Google Search Monopoly Chrome Browser Android Business

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed and largely accurate account of the legal proceedings involving Apple and Google's antitrust trial. It effectively captures the complexity of the situation and presents it in a clear and accessible manner. The use of reputable sources lends credibility, though the article could benefit from more direct evidence and perspectives from all parties involved. While it addresses issues of significant public interest and potential impact, the story could be enhanced by providing more context and exploring the broader implications of the trial. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the discourse on corporate accountability and market regulation, offering insights into the challenges faced by major tech companies in navigating legal and competitive landscapes.

Accuracy

The article provides a largely accurate account of the legal proceedings involving Apple and Google. The key factual claim that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Apple's attempt to intervene in the antitrust trial against Google is corroborated by multiple sources. The reported financial figures regarding Apple's search deal with Google, cited as $18 billion in 2021 and $20 billion in 2022, align with industry reports, though they should be verified for precision. The timeline of Apple's intervention attempt and the court's decision also matches the documented legal timeline. However, the article could benefit from more detailed verification of the DOJ's proposed remedies and Google's position on Apple's participation, which were not clearly specified.

Balance

The article provides a balanced overview of the situation, presenting the perspectives of both Apple and the legal system. It discusses Apple's concerns and motivations in wanting to intervene in the trial, as well as the court's reasoning for denying this request. However, it could offer more insight into Google's perspective or response to the situation, which would provide a more comprehensive view. Additionally, the implications of the DOJ's actions on the broader tech industry context are not explored, which could add depth to the narrative.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language to convey the complex legal proceedings. It logically presents the sequence of events, from Apple's initial motion to the court's decision, making it easy for readers to follow. The tone remains neutral and factual, which aids in comprehension. However, a brief explanation of the antitrust context could further enhance understanding for readers unfamiliar with legal terminology.

Source quality

The article cites reputable sources such as Ars Technica and MediaDailyNews, which are known for their coverage of technology and legal matters. These sources lend credibility to the claims made in the article. However, the article could enhance its reliability by including direct statements or official documents from the court proceedings or the companies involved, which would provide first-hand evidence of the events described.

Transparency

The article provides a clear account of the events but lacks transparency regarding the basis for certain claims, such as the exact figures of the financial deal between Apple and Google. It does not disclose the methodology for obtaining these figures or the sources of these estimates. Additionally, there is limited context on the broader implications of the trial's outcome, which could help readers understand the potential impact on the tech industry.