• by Wendy Davis , Yesterday

Google search users are urging a federal judge to let them proceed with their antitrust lawsuit against the company, arguing that its search deals with Apple and others kept potential rivals from offering "high-quality search products that are more privacy protective and ad-free."

The users contend they "suffered direct antitrust injury from Google’s exclusionary conduct," referring to its arrangement to serve as the default search engine for Apple's Safari browsers and on Android devices.

"Plaintiffs lost the benefits of competition that would have included potential compensation for searches and search data; more privacy-protective search options; fewer or no advertisements; and broader choice among competing general search engines," the search users add in papers filed Wednesday with U.S. District Court Judge Rita Lin in the Northern District of California.

The new papers come in response to a July 6 order issued by Lin, directing the plaintiffs to spell out how they were affected by Google's alleged monopoly in search.

She suggested in the order that she would dismiss the lawsuit unless they could show that they were injured by Google.

The plaintiffs responded Wednesday that they experienced two "concrete" injuries.

"Google collected and monetized their search queries, their data, their time, and their attention without compensating them; and they were deprived of access to search alternatives offering them compensation, stronger privacy protections, or fewer ads," counsel for the plaintiffs wrote.

The battle dates to April 2022, when Mary Katherine Arcell and other search users alleged in an antitrust complaint that Google monopolized search due to its distribution deals.

The U.S. Department of Justice brought similar antitrust claims against Google in 2020. The Justice Department won that case in 2024, when U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. ruled that Google's distribution deals allowed it to illegally monopolize search.

Mehta highlighted the privacy implications of Google's monopoly, characterizing DuckDuckGo as a privacy-protective search engine that is hindered by Google's search distribution deals, and a lack of access to data. (DuckDuckGo says it doesn't save users' IP address or any unique identifiers alongside searches.)

Mehta also noted that the short-lived subscription-based rival Neeva was unable to gain traction in the search market.

After Mehta issued that ruling, Arcell and the others amended their complaint to include allegations that Google's search deals hindered competitors with more privacy safeguards.

In January 2025, Lin rejected Google's bid to dismiss the case at a relatively early stage. Instead, she allowed the plaintiffs to obtain evidence in preparation for trial through "discovery."

Last month, Google urged Lin to award the company summary judgment, meaning a ruling in its favor based on witness depositions and other evidence developed for trial.

Among other arguments, Google said the plaintiffs' claims that they were injured by the distribution deals rested on "sheer speculation."

Lin noted that argument in her July 6 order, writing that Google's contention implies that the plaintiffs may not have experienced the kind of injury that is actionable in court.

Google is expected to respond to the plaintiffs' argument by July 20.