• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, January 28, 2025

Apple can't officially intervene in the federal government's attempt to end the company's long-standing search and revenue-sharing partnership with Google, but can participate in the case as a friend-of-the-court, a federal judge ruled Monday.

In a 19-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. said Apple waited too long to request to intervene in the antitrust battle between the Department of Justice and Google.

“Despite the court’s repeated indications that time is of the essence, Apple did not act expeditiously,” Mehta wrote.

He added that he will allow Apple to participate as a friend-of-the-court and file post-hearing submissions “to ensure consideration of Apple’s views when crafting the remedial decree.”

The ruling effectively means that Apple will be able to submit written arguments to the judge, but won't be able to present its own witnesses or cross-examine witnesses for the government or Google.

Apple's request came in a lawsuit dating to 2020, when the federal government and a coalition of states alleged that Google monopolized search.

Last August, after conducting a trial, Mehta ruled that Google violated antitrust law by arranging to serve as the default search engine on browsers operated by Apple and Mozilla, as well as on Android devices.

Mehta is expected to soon hold a trial over potential remedies. The federal government in October proposed numerous restrictions on Google, including that it end a long-running revenue-sharing partnership with Apple.

That deal involves Google serving as the default search engine for Safari, for which Google pays Apple around 36% of search revenue for queries originating on Safari. The agreement resulted in an estimated $20 billion payment from Google to Apple in 2022.

Late last month, Apple sought to intervene in the case, arguing that it has a stake in the outcome.

The Justice Department countered that Apple's request was untimely, adding that Google would have an incentive to oppose the proposal because its interests in the revenue-sharing agreement are aligned with Apple's.

Mehta sided against Apple.

“Apple knew (or should have known) from the outset of this litigation, in late 2020, that this suit would directly affect its contractual rights,” Mehta wrote.

He added: “Apple knew (or should have known) since October 8, 2024 ... that the remedies sought could be expansive in scope and, consequently, that Google may not be capable of adequately defending Apple’s interests during the remedial phase of this litigation. And Apple knew (or should have known) that waiting two-and-a-half months to intervene in a proceeding scheduled to last just eight months altogether would constitute a significant delay.”

He also said that allowing Apple to intervene could result in intervention by other companies that might be affected by the outcome of the case -- including Firefox developer Mozilla, which depends on its revenue-share agreement with Google.