• by Wendy Davis , 3 hours ago

Google is pressing a federal appellate court to reverse a finding that the company illegally monopolized search by arranging to serve as the default search engine on browsers operated by Apple and Mozilla, as well as on Android devices.

In papers filed late last month with the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Google says Apple and Mozilla chose Google as the default search engine because Apple and Mozilla "sought to give consumers what they wanted" -- namely, "the best" search engine.

Google adds that it was able to offer a better search engine than competitors "because it had outpaced its rivals through leading technology, better monetization, top engineering talent, and superior business foresight."

"When a firm offers what consumers prefer, its rivals inevitably lose, but consumers win because they get what they want," Google argues. "For that reason, competition on the merits never violates the antitrust laws. That bedrock principle disposes of this case."

The company's new filing comes in a dispute that began in 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.

He wrote in an August 2024 ruling that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly in two markets: general search services and 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.

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

But the judge rejected a request by antitrust enforcers to bar Google from making payments to Apple and other companies that distribute Google's search engine.

Google and antitrust enforcers both appealed, with Google arguing that the case should have been dismissed, and the authorities arguing that Mehta should have prohibited Google from paying Apple or Mozilla to distribute Google's search engine.

Antitrust enforcers contended in papers filed in July that unless Google is prevented from paying Apple and others, Google "can continue leveraging its monopoly profits ... to secure future search-default deals, keeping the ecosystem frozen."

Google counters that even if the court upholds Mehta's determination that Google violated antitrust law, there is no reason to ban payments to distributors.

When Mehta issued the remedies order he said banning Google from paying Apple and others would force those companies to either offer Google as a default without receiving revenue, or enter into agreements with "lesser quality" search engines.

Google is now calling the appellate court's attention to that reasoning, writing that neither of those potential outcomes "promotes competition."

"The first would serve only to increase Google’s profits, while the second would offer consumers an inferior and undesired product," Google argues.

The appeals court hasn't yet scheduled a date for oral arguments.