In a decision that surprised many, a federal judge opted not to dismantle the most powerful and lucrative alliance in modern technology: Google’s default search deal with Apple. The ruling to permit the continuation of Google’s estimated $20 billion annual payments to the iPhone maker was a cornerstone of the verdict in the landmark antitrust case.
Judge Amit Mehta provided clear reasoning for this controversial choice, writing that a ban on such payments would “almost certainly impose substantial… downstream harms.” He worried about the financial stability of distribution partners and the potential negative impact on consumers, suggesting that the economic shock of severing this tie would be too great.
This pragmatic, stability-focused approach trumped the Department of Justice’s argument that the payments were the primary tool used by Google to illegally maintain its search monopoly. The court essentially concluded that while the deal was anti-competitive, the cure of a payment ban would be worse than the disease.
The ruling is a testament to how deeply intertwined the fortunes of these two tech behemoths have become. Breaking them apart, the court feared, could destabilize a significant portion of the mobile economy. As a result, the symbiotic relationship that has defined the mobile search landscape for over a decade will continue, for now.
Why the Judge Spared Google’s Most Powerful Alliance with Apple
