We knew Google would appeal the search monopoly ruling; in fact, Google asked the courts to pause the remedies until the appeal is handled. Google was ruled an illegal monopoly in August 2024 but then the courts refused to break up Google as part of the remedies in September 2025.
Now, Google filed an 111 page appeal (PDF) where Google argued that U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta's "remarkable conclusion" wrongly punished the company for outperforming competitors and building a product so dominant its name became a verb, calling the ruling "as basic an error of antitrust law as a court can make."
Google asked the appeals court to completely overturn the remedies imposed by the lower court, which mandated that Google share specific search index data, user-interaction information, and syndicate results with competitors to level the playing field.
Google again argued that its success and dominant market position are the result of developing a superior product through hard work, bold innovation, and shrewd business decisions rather than anticompetitive behavior. It asserts that the district court made "as basic an error of antitrust law as a court can make" by finding liability despite recognizing Google's product quality.
In the appeal, Google emphasized that its multi-billion-dollar distribution agreements, such as its deal with Apple to be the default search engine on Safari, were won "fair and square." Google argues that these agreements did not block rivals from proposing better offers, nor did they restrict device manufacturers and browser developers from promoting alternative search services.
Google also contended that there is no evidence or finding that partners like Apple or Mozilla would have selected a competitor's search engine even if the revenue-sharing agreements did not exist. The brief cites evidence from the trial highlighting that Apple explicitly viewed rivals like Microsoft's Bing as "inferior."
With Google having submitted this opening appellate brief, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is expected to file its responsive opposition brief to defend the district court's monopoly ruling.
There is a lot more coverage of this on Techmeme, probably way better written than what I put together.
Forum discussion at X.
