Google's financial arrangement with Apple to maintain its position as Safari's default search engine has been a cornerstone of both companies' business strategies. Court documents revealed that Google paid Apple a staggering $20 billion in 2022 alone for this privilege123, representing a $2 billion increase from previous years. This payment constitutes approximately 36% of the ad revenue generated from searches conducted through Safari45, and in 2020, these payments accounted for 17.5% of Apple's operating income3.

The relationship dates back to 2002, when Google initially became Safari's default search engine without any payment3. Over time, this evolved into a revenue-sharing agreement that has grown exponentially, with Google paying Apple over $1 billion monthly by May 20213. While users can manually change their default search engine to alternatives like Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Ecosia23, this arrangement has become a focal point in antitrust investigations. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has testified that this deal creates significant barriers for competitors like Bing, despite Microsoft once offering Apple 90% of its advertising revenue to switch defaults2.

The lawsuit alleges that Google engaged in anti-competitive tactics by contracting mobile phone manufacturers and network operators to preinstall Google Search and Chrome on Android devices, while also paying billions to Apple to make Google the default search engine in Safari.12 These exclusive distribution agreements effectively made Google the dominant search engine across Android and Apple devices, creating significant barriers for competing search engines.34

In the United States, Google has already faced similar legal challenges, with a landmark ruling in August 2024 where Judge Amit Mehta found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining an illegal monopoly in online search.54 The court determined that Google's default search agreements foreclosed approximately 50% of the general search services market by query volume, enabling the company to charge "supracompetitive" prices for search text advertisements.42 In response to this ruling, Google recently proposed loosening its agreements with browser developers, allowing them to revisit default search engine decisions annually and enabling multiple default agreements across different platforms.67

The lawsuit alleges that Google leveraged its dominance by requiring smartphone manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome browser as conditions for licensing the Google Play Store on Android devices.12 These Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs) created what the European Commission and General Court described as a "status quo bias," where users tend to stick with pre-installed apps rather than downloading alternatives.34 Additionally, Google's anti-fragmentation agreements (AFAs) prevented manufacturers from developing devices with unapproved Android variants, effectively forcing them to choose between having Google's ecosystem on all their devices or none at all.52

This strategy was central to Google's business model, as pre-installed apps funneled users to Google Search, generating advertising revenue that subsidized Android's development.26 While Google argued these practices were necessary to monetize its investment in Android and maintain it as a free platform, regulators rejected this defense, noting Google had other significant revenue sources.78 The European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion (later reduced to €4.125 billion) for these practices in 2018, a decision largely upheld by the General Court in 2022.910