• by Wendy Davis , 10 hours ago

Google is asking a federal appellate court to reverse a trial judge's finding that the company unlawfully monopolized search by arranging to serve as the default search engine on browsers operated by Apple and Mozilla, as well as on Android devices.

Google "prevailed in the marketplace fair and square," the company writes in papers filed late last week with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The company writes that Apple and Mozilla "sensibly chose" Google as the default search engine "because it gave their users the best experience," and because Apple and Mozilla would earn the most ad revenue through the deals.

"That is what competition on the merits looks like," Google writes.

The company's argument comes in an antitrust battle dating to 2020, when the federal Department of Justice and a coalition of states accused Google of violating anti-monopoly laws.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., sided against Google after presiding over a trial.

Mehta said in an August 2024 ruling that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in two markets: general search services, and search text ads.

The judge added that Google "exercised its monopoly power by charging supracompetitive prices for general search text ads."

In September 2025, Mehta issued a remedies order that requires Google to share some data about users' searches with "qualified" competitors and to provide syndicated search results and ads to those competitors.

The order also prohibits Google from entering into exclusive distribution contracts for Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and the Gemini app for six years.

Google is now asking the appellate court to reverse Mehta's liability finding or, if the court upholds the liability ruling, to reverse the provisions of the remedies order that require Google to share data about users' searches with competitors, and to provide syndicated search results and ads to competitors.

Among other arguments, Google says its browser agreements with Apple and Mozilla were "lawful competition, not unlawful exclusion."

"The browser-makers -- not Google -- made the decision to have a single out-of-the-box default, and they did so for the procompetitive reason of improving their users’ experience," Google writes.

The company adds that those agreements were not exclusive, writing that Apple and Mozilla "remained free to promote and meet users’ demand" for rival search engines.

"Conduct does not violate the antitrust laws merely because it helps a defendant beat its rivals -- lawful competition does that, too," Google wrote. "Conduct cannot cross the line into illegality unless it prevents a defendant’s rivals from winning even if they have a better product or make a better offer. Google never did anything like that."

Google notes there was evidence in the record that Mozilla changed Firefox's default search engine to Yahoo in 2014, but then resumed using Google as the default because users wanted Google.

The company also says its placement on Android wasn't enough, in itself, to warrant an antitrust finding.

Google also says that even if the appeals court agrees that the company violated antitrust law, the mandate to provide competitors with data should be reversed.

"Even if the liability decision stands unmodified, this Court should strike the district court’s data-transfer and syndication remedies," Google writes. "Those remedies cannot be justified under existing law."

Google writes that Mehta "never found what effect (if any) Google’s conduct had on the market and thus ... lacked a basis to ensure that its injunction would restore what Google’s supposed wrongdoing took away."

The Justice Department and states are expected to respond to Google's arguments in July.