Last summer, a federal judge ruled that the over $20B paid by Google to Apple for its status as the default search engine on Apple devices was unlawful.
Although several Apple executives provided testimony in the case, a request to add three more witnesses was denied by the judge, who stated that Apple had submitted the request too late…
Current Status of the Case
When you conduct a web search through the Safari search bar, unless you’ve adjusted the settings, your query will automatically default to Google. This is due to a significant financial agreement where Google compensates Apple annually for this default status.
This arrangement is advantageous for Google as it garners a substantial portion of its search traffic from Apple users, allowing it to present ads tailored to this audience. Users of Apple devices are particularly desirable for advertisers due to their higher than average income levels.
For Apple, this setup equates to easy revenue, as they simply need to choose a default search engine, and Google is typically the go-to choice.
While the exact sum exchanged remains confidential, Apple classifies this revenue within its Services segment and estimates suggest it has grown from the low billions in the beginning to over $20B today.
These estimates were confirmed during the antitrust case against Google, where a disclosure revealed that the payment for 2022 was indeed $20B.
A judge determined that Google’s financial arrangement with Apple was in violation of antitrust laws and advised it should cease these payments for a decade. This would significantly impact Apple’s Services revenue.
The ongoing proceedings revolve around whether the suggested resolution will be confirmed or altered.
Judge Denies Apple’s Request for Additional Witnesses
On December 23, just before Christmas, Apple made a late request to introduce three more witnesses to support its defense. It is important to clarify that Apple isn’t accused of wrongdoing in accepting these funds, but it certainly has a vested interest in the case’s outcome.
However, according to Courthouse News Service, the judge has rejected this request, indicating that Apple had waited too long and that allowing this would create an unacceptable delay for the proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta stated in his decision that Apple’s motion was untimely and therefore he must deny the motion to intervene […]
“Apple was aware (or should have been) that waiting two-and-a-half months to intervene in a case expected to last just eight months would lead to a substantial delay,” Mehta noted, referring to his anticipated resolution decision in August 2025.
Judge Mehta indicated that the need for additional testimony would directly cause delays, and there might also be further delays stemming from Apple potentially not confining its testimony to the specific matters raised. He also pointed out that this could open the door for similar motions from other companies like Samsung and AT&T, which have analogous agreements with Google.
Nonetheless, the judge will permit Apple to submit an amicus brief, which he will consider while making his final ruling. An amicus brief is a document submitted by an individual or group that is not directly involved in the case but believes their insights or perspectives may benefit the court.
Photo by Firmbee.com on Unsplash
: We utilize auto affiliate links that generate income. More.
