Judge Again Denies Apple's Attempt to Intervene in Google Search Engine Lawsuit

Apple is fighting to defend its multi-billion dollar search engine deal with Google as Google is prosecuted for antitrust violations, and so far, the court isn't making it easy. Last week, Apple filed a motion for an emergency stay that would give the Cupertino company time to intervene in the lawsuit, but the judge overseeing the case denied Apple's motion [PDF] and won't hold off on moving forward.

Google Logo Feature Slack
In November, Apple asked the court to allow it to be more involved in the case as the court decides what steps to take to prevent Google from continuing to violate antitrust law. The court said no, so Apple appealed the ruling, but it will take time for the appeals process to play out. While it waits on an appeal, Apple wanted the court to pause the proceedings, but the judge isn't inclined to do so.

According to the court, Apple did not demonstrate that it will suffer "certain and great" harm that would justify a stay, nor has it adequately explained why it needs a bigger role in the lawsuit or what new evidence it has to present. The court also does not feel that Apple has proven that a mistake was made when its initial motion for intervention was denied. Further, the judge feels that moving forward is important to prevent Google from continuing with its antitrust violations.

As the court stated in its order denying intervention, this case has been pending for over four years, and the delay from postponing the evidentiary hearing would be months, not weeks.

What's more, the court has concluded that Google violated federal antitrust law by entering into exclusive search distribution agreements with various companies (including Apple) to achieve and maintain a monopoly in both the general search services market and the general text advertising market.

Preserving the status quo by granting a stay, as Apple urges, would only perpetuate this unlawful activity and is therefore contrary to the public interest.

Last year, Google was found guilty of violating antitrust law, and its search engine deal with Apple was a main focus of the case. Google pays Apple billions each year to be the default search engine for Safari, and the court decided that deal and other Google practices violate antitrust law.

The U.S. government has asked the court to prevent Google from entering into search contracts with Apple and other companies, and Apple does not want that to happen. Apple will be losing upward of $20 billion annually if Google is barred from continuing on with the search engine deal, and Apple would still have to offer Google Search as an option to users.

Google is also facing more extreme remedies, and it could be forced to sell the Chrome browser or uncouple Android from products like Google Search and the Google Play Store. Apple feels that Google will prioritize defending Chrome and its other properties over its search deal with Apple, which is why Apple wants to step in.

"If Apple's appeal is not resolved until during or after the remedies trial, Apple may well be forced to stand mute at trial, as a mere spectator, while the government pursues an extreme remedy that targets Apple by name and would prohibit any commercial arrangement between Apple and Google for a decade," Apple wrote in the filing asking for a stay.

Apple now plans to file a motion to expedite its appeal of the initial ruling barring it from further participating in the Google lawsuit. The remedies portion of the antitrust lawsuit against Google is set to begin in April, so the appeals process may have time to play out before then if Apple can get the case expedited.

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
xiaomi apple ad india

Apple and Samsung Push Back Against Xiaomi's Bold India Ads

Friday August 29, 2025 4:54 am PDT by
Apple and Samsung have reportedly issued cease-and-desist notices to Xiaomi in India for an ad campaign that directly compares the rivals' devices to Xiaomi's products. The two companies have threatened the Chinese vendor with legal action, calling the ads "disparaging." Ads have appeared in local print media and on social media that take pot shots at the competitors' premium offerings. One...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...
maxresdefault

The MacRumors Show: iPhone 17's 'Awe Dropping' Accessories

Friday August 29, 2025 8:12 am PDT by
Following the announcement of Apple's upcoming "Awe dropping" event, on this week's episode of The MacRumors Show we talk through all of the new accessories rumored to debut alongside the iPhone 17 lineup. Subscribe to The MacRumors Show YouTube channel for more videos We take a closer look at Apple's invite for "Awe dropping;" the design could hint at the iPhone 17's new thermal system with ...

Top Rated Comments

turbineseaplane Avatar
8 months ago
Apple, get out of this

This is not your business to be nosing around in
Score: 10 Votes (Like | Disagree)
JPack Avatar
8 months ago

I agree, a find it odd that a judge doesn't think $20b a year is a valid reason.

If someone sued my largest client, won, and the potential remedy being seriously considered was "client can't pay me anymore" you're damn right I'm wanting to get involved in the lawsuit.
The judge writes in the decision that's exactly why it's an invalid reason.

"Preserving the status quo by granting a stay, as Apple urges, would only perpetuate this unlawful activity and is therefore contrary to the public interest."

This is like a drug kingpin being arrested and a street seller complaining to the judge, "Stop the prosecution! He still owes me two grand for the stuff I helped him distribute!"
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
WarmWinterHat Avatar
8 months ago
Good.

Google has already been found guilty of being a monopolist. Apple needs to mind its own business.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
8 months ago

According to the court, Apple did not demonstrate that it will suffer "certain and great" harm that would justify a stay, nor has it adequately explained why it needs a bigger role in the lawsuit or what new evidence it has to present.

[ . . . ]

Google is also facing more extreme remedies, and it could be forced to sell the Chrome browser or uncouple Android from products like Google Search and the Google Play Store. Apple feels that Google will prioritize defending Chrome and its other properties over its search deal with Apple, which is why Apple wants to step in.
Apple needs a bigger role in the lawsuit because $20 billion+ per year is pure profit and is a lot of money to just give up without a fight.

For context, Apple's net income for fiscal year 2024 was $93.736 billion. 21.33% of that was from Google search deal alone.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
WarmWinterHat Avatar
8 months ago

I can see why Apple wants to get involved since it directly concerns Apples earnings.
..and the only reason we know it is because of this trial. Seems a bit dishonest not to let your investors know that such a massive percentage of your profit hinges on shaky deals.

This should have been split this out in their earnings report instead of it being lumped into "services". They did it to obfuscate, because they know it looked bad.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Mrkevinfinnerty Avatar
8 months ago
Do not collect your $20 billion



Attachment Image
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)