• by Wendy Davis , September 19, 2025

Search advertiser California Crane School is again attempting to revive a lawsuit claiming Apple and Google conspired to avoid competing in paid search.

Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld U.S. District Court Judge P. Casey Pitts's decision to throw out the company's suit against Apple, and sending claims against Google to arbitration because its contract with advertisers requires arbitration of disputes.

On Thursday, California Crane, which trains crane operators, asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider that ruling.

"The panel's decision, if left undisturbed, will have a chilling effect on the ability of private plaintiffs to enforce the antitrust laws against dominant technology platforms, particularly where the evidence of conspiracy is uniquely within the defendants' possession," the search advertiser argues in its petition for a new hearing.

The company's new petition comes in a 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. The school contended that the companies' deal resulted in higher prices for search ads.

Pitts said in a March 2024 ruling dismissing the case 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 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, noting that the evidence in the government's case against Google wouldn't have changed his ruling. (Shortly after Pitts issued that decision, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. found that Google monopolized search as a result of its distribution deals with Apple and other companies.)

California Crane unsuccessfully appealed that ruling to the 9th Circuit, which said the company's complaint lacked the kinds of detailed allegations that would have warranted further proceedings.

"Crane asserts that the public vertical agreement that sets Google as the default search engine on Apple’s browser is evidence of a secret horizontal conspiracy involving Apple's promise not to compete with Google in the search business. But Crane failed to advance well-pleaded allegations suggesting direct evidence of any such secret agreement," Circuit Judges Morgan Christen, Daniel Bress and Lawrence VanDyke wrote in an unsigned opinion.

They added that the public agreement between Google and Apple doesn't include any provisions that would have prevented Apple from attempting to develop its own search engine.

California Crane argues in its new papers that the appellate judges wrongly upheld Pitts' dismissal for several reasons. Among others, the company says the panel's decision creates a conflict with Mehta's finding against Google in Justice Department's antitrust case.

The advertiser is seeking a new hearing in front of a majority of the 9th Circuit judges.