Google says $20B Safari deal was ‘fair and square’

Google $20B – In its antitrust appeal, Google argues its $20 billion search preference deal with Apple was “fair and square,” claiming it didn’t block rivals and that Safari’s choice was ultimately Apple’s. The company is also pushing back on September 2025 remedies, includ

Google is fighting to keep key parts of a judge’s antitrust ruling from sticking—insisting its $20 billion search preference deal with Apple was “fair and square,” and that the court misunderstood what competition was actually harmed.

The dispute centers on a decision made in the middle of the relationship between two tech giants: Apple made Google its preferred search engine for Safari. in exchange for $20 billion. In August 2024. a court ruled that Google acted as a monopolist in the United States in the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet. That ruling included scrutiny of the search preference deal with Apple.

On May 22, Google filed an appeal against federal rulings that found illegal monopolies in search and advertising. In its appeal, Google argues that Judge Amit Mehta made legal errors in his 2024 ruling.

Google’s core message is blunt: it says it “did nothing” to harm competition—regardless of whether the court believes Google has monopoly power. The company says it didn’t block competitors so it could force its own offers into the market. It also argues it didn’t block Apple from choosing a different option.

The appeal makes room for a different explanation: the choice was Apple’s. Google says there’s no evidence that its customers would have chosen a rival even if the search agreements didn’t exist. In one pointed example. Google points to Apple’s conclusion that Microsoft rival Bing was “inferior” and “horrible at monetizing advertising.”.

Google also says Apple could have promoted other search engines and that Safari itself lists alternative options within its settings. In Google’s framing, the court treated the arrangement as “exclusivity,” when Google believes it should have been understood as “sound business reasons” for Apple.

The company isn’t only trying to reverse the underlying findings. Even though Google avoided major injury from the lawsuit, it still has obligations the later rulings imposed.

In September 2025, the later ruling decided that Google didn’t have to sell off Android or Chrome. It also allowed Google to continue its $20 billion search deal with Apple. But the court required Google to share search data with competitors.

In its appeal, Google is seeking to overturn those remedies, too. It says the reversal wouldn’t change the Apple search deal itself, but it would stop the data-sharing requirement entirely.

One portion of the filing takes that argument directly into the generative AI era. Google discusses how the requirement applies to rival companies that—by Google’s definition—shouldn’t be treated as rivals, specifically firms that deal strictly with AI.

Google’s position is that it should not be forced to supply data to OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, which doesn’t offer its own general search engine. Instead, ChatGPT and similar tools provide answers that reference what would normally be search results.

Google argues that generative AI products didn’t exist in a substantial way at the time of the original analysis. so the court could not have incorporated ChatGPT and others as rivals when considering its ruling. Google also says AI companies are already succeeding without needing to “free-ride” on Google’s success. and that the data-sharing remedies should not apply to AI firms that do not offer a general search engine.

For now, the case is in procedural limbo. At the time of publication, the court has not responded to Google’s appeal or scheduled any further courtroom activity. Based on typical scheduling patterns, the case could continue in late 2026, or even in 2027.

The through-line in Google’s appeal is the same across its arguments: the company portrays the Safari deal not as a mechanism that throttled choice. but as the result of Apple selecting what it viewed as the right product. And when the fight shifts from search preference to the required sharing of data. Google’s push is equally specific—AI companies like OpenAI. it says. shouldn’t be pulled into a remedy meant for traditional rivals.

Google Apple Safari antitrust appeal Department of Justice Alphabet Amit Mehta search data sharing OpenAI ChatGPT generative AI Android Chrome Bing