• by Wendy Davis , March 23, 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away the search advertiser California Crane School, which had wanted the court to revive a class-action complaint alleging that Apple and Google conspired to avoid competing in paid search.

As is customary, the court didn't give a reason for its refusal to take the case.

The move brings an end to a battle dating to 2021, when California Crane, which trains crane operators, alleged that Google's longstanding arrangement to serve as the default search engine in Apple's Safari was part of a conspiracy to avoid competition. California Crane contended that the alleged conspiracy resulted in higher prices for search ads.

In March 2024, U.S. District Court Judge P. Casey Pitts in the Northern District of California dismissed the case against Apple, and sent claims against Google to arbitration because its contract with advertisers requires arbitration of disputes.

Pitts ruled at the time that California Crane's allegations -- even if proven true -- wouldn't show that Google and Apple were engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

After Pitts issued the ruling, California Crane sought reconsideration 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 then unsuccessfully appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In January, the advertiser urged the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that lower court judges failed to adequately consider the evidence the Justice Department presented to Mehta in its antitrust suit against Google.

"The trial evidence in the Mehta case established that Google’s monopoly power, maintained by exclusive distribution agreements, enabled it to increase text ad prices without meaningful competitive constraint," California Crane wrote in its petition for review.

California Crane also said the arbitration clause in its contract with Google should not have been enforced.

The 9th Circuit upheld that clause, ruling it wasn't "unconscionable" because Crane could have opted out of arbitration.

"Google’s Terms of Service allow would-be advertisers like Crane a chance to opt out of arbitration and still purchase advertising services, yet Crane never opted out," the appellate judges wrote in September.

California Crane argued in its bid for a Supreme Court appeal that the ability to opt out was "illusory," claiming that "no evidence established Google would have continued to deal with Petitioners had they opted out."