• by Wendy Davis , March 20, 2025

Search advertiser California Crane School has no valid grounds to resurrect claims that Google and Apple conspired to avoid competing in the paid search market, the companies argued this week to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Silicon Valley companies are asking the appellate court to uphold U.S. District Court Judge Pitts's decision dismissing California Crane's antitrust complaint. 

California Crane, which trains crane operators, "repeatedly failed to plead viable claims," Google writes in papers filed this week with the 9th Circuit. 

Apple added in a separate brief that California Crane "has not plausibly alleged that Apple is a potential competitor to Google in general search or search advertising."

The new arguments come in a legal battle dating to 2021, when California Crane alleged that Google's longstanding arrangement to serve as the default search engine for Apple's Safari browser was part of a scheme to avoid competition. California Crane contended that the companies' deal resulted in higher prices for search ads.

Pitts said in a March 2024 ruling that California Crane's allegations -- even if proven true -- wouldn't show that Google and Apple were engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

California Crane subsequently asked Pitts to reconsider the ruling in light of evidence that emerged during the government's antitrust trial against Google in federal court in Washington, D.C.

In that matter, the Department of Justice and a coalition of states claimed Google wrongly monopolized search due to its search distribution deals, including the partnership with Apple.

Pitts rejected California Crane's argument in July, noting that the evidence in the government's case against Google wouldn't have changed his ruling.

“The court was already aware of the ... relationship between Google and Apple based on the revenue-sharing agreement related to Google being the default search engine on Apple’s devices,” Pitts wrote.

He threw out the claims against Apple, and sent the claims against Google to arbitration, because its contract with advertisers requires arbitration of disputes.

After that decision came out, Mehta ruled that Google monopolized search as a result of its distribution deals with Apple and other companies.

California Crane recently appealed the dismissal of its claims, citing Mehta's ruling as a reason to revive the case.

Google and Apple countered this week that Mehta's ruling dealt with allegations that Google monopolized search -- not that Google and Apple conspired with each other.

Apple also noted that Mehta found the company had independent reasons for not creating its own search engine -- including that it would cost the company billions to do so.

Mehta's decision “confirms that Apple had numerous legitimate -- indeed, compelling -- business reasons not to attempt to build its own search engine,” Apple wrote.

California Crane's deadline to file a response is April 7.