Apple just lost $20 billion in a single court ruling after the DC Circuit Court denied their attempt to intervene in Google’s antitrust trial—too little, too late for the tech giant whose financial future now hangs in the balance.
At a Glance
- Apple has been excluded from participating in Google’s antitrust trial, putting its $20 billion annual search engine deal at risk
- The court rejected Apple’s intervention attempt due to a 33-day delay in filing, calling the postponement “unacceptable”
- Google pays Apple billions annually to be the default search engine on Safari, a practice now under scrutiny as anti-competitive
- If the court forces an end to this arrangement, Apple may need to develop its own search engine or find alternative revenue sources
- The case has parallels to the Microsoft antitrust cases of the 1990s and signals increasing government scrutiny of Big Tech partnerships
Too Late to the Party: Apple’s Failed Intervention
In a devastating blow to Apple’s financial strategy, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the tech giant’s attempt to intervene in the Department of Justice’s antitrust case against Google. The ruling effectively prevents Apple from defending the $20 billion annual arrangement that makes Google the default search engine on Apple devices. Apple’s legal team waited until December 2024 to file their motion to intervene—a full four years after the DOJ initiated its case against Google—and the judges weren’t having it.
“The court deemed this postponement unacceptable, asserting that Apple should have acted more swiftly if it wished to engage,” stated the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in their ruling. This bureaucratic misstep by Apple’s typically savvy legal team has left them relegated to submitting written testimony only, without the ability to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The timing couldn’t be worse, as the DOJ already won its case against Google in 2024 and is now focusing on remedies—with Apple’s lucrative search deal directly in the crosshairs.
Apple Barred From Google Antitrust Trial, $20 Billion Search Deal at Risk https://t.co/MuD6IuHSLu
— Slashdot (@slashdot) March 26, 2025
A $20 Billion Problem for Apple Shareholders
The financial implications for Apple are substantial and immediate. This search agreement with Google, which reportedly generated $18 billion in 2021 and approximately $20 billion in 2022, represents pure profit that flows directly to Apple’s bottom line. Losing this revenue stream would not only impact Apple’s quarterly earnings but could significantly affect its stock price and dividend payments. Tech industry analysts have begun speculating about how Apple might replace this substantial revenue if the court mandates an end to the Google agreement.
The arrangement has been a win-win for both companies: Google maintains its dominant market position in search (and the advertising revenue that comes with it), while Apple collects billions for essentially doing nothing. The DOJ argues this arrangement stifles competition by giving Google a “captive audience” of millions of iPhone and Mac users who rarely change their default search settings. If the court agrees, this cozy arrangement that has enriched both tech giants at the expense of market competition may soon come to an end.
Limited Options Going Forward
Apple now faces tough choices in a post-Google partnership world. Despite the enormous financial incentive, Apple’s Services SVP Eddy Cue has previously dismissed developing an in-house search engine. The investment required to compete with Google’s decades of search refinement and massive data advantages would be astronomical, with uncertain returns. Partnerships with alternative search providers like Microsoft’s Bing could be an option, but such deals would likely generate far less revenue than the Google arrangement.
One potential outcome is that Apple devices would be required to present users with a choice of search engines during setup, similar to what happened with browsers in Europe following antitrust actions against Microsoft. While this would technically create a more competitive landscape, smaller search engines like DuckDuckGo and Kagi would still face significant hurdles. According to one Kagi spokesperson, Apple has created “unnecessary hurdles” for alternative search providers, reflecting the tech giant’s vested interest in maintaining its Google partnership.
Broader Implications for Big Tech
This case represents yet another example of increasing government scrutiny on Big Tech collaborations that potentially harm competition. Just as the Microsoft antitrust cases of the 1990s fundamentally altered the software landscape, this Google case could reshape how search engines and hardware manufacturers interact. For American consumers tired of Big Tech’s outsized influence and cozy arrangements, this case offers a glimpse of potential market realignment, where actual competition might drive innovation rather than partnership agreements worth billions.
Apple technically has until March 28 to seek further review of the court’s decision to exclude them from the trial, but legal experts suggest their chances of reversal are slim. This means Apple executives are likely already planning for a future without Google’s billions—a prospect that should worry investors and potentially excite consumers who might benefit from increased search engine competition. As this case progresses toward its conclusion, it marks yet another example of government finally catching up to tech industry practices that have gone unchallenged for too long.
