Apple was banned from Google Antitröst attempt and made a 20 billion dollar search agreement
Apple, Google with a profitable search placement agreement has taken a blow in efforts to save. A new decision from the DC Circuit Appeal Court confirms that Apple cannot attend Google’s upcoming antitröst hearing, which can leave a billions of dollars in Apple’s balance sheet. The judges in the case say that he is waiting for a long time to be involved in Apple.
Just a few years ago, a Supreme Court of Court, which contained Apple and Google, found companies on the opposite sides, but not today. Apple’s and Google’s interests are aligned here in a $ 20 billion. Google cracks this money every year and is happy to secure the settlement as the default search provider in the safari desktop and mobile browser.
The antitröst penalties waiting against Google will make this agreement unacceptable. During the trial, the government clarified the value of the defaults – most people never changed them. This offers Google effectively on Apple devices.
Google’s legal war with Doj’s Antitröst Department has been shaped as the most important action against a technology company since Microsoft in the late 90s. Perhaps this period of stability deceived Google’s partners to think that nothing would change, but the seriousness of the government’s proposed solutions seems to have convinced them.
Google lost the case in August 2024 and the government proposed solutions in October. Accordingly MediaPost caused problems with the appeal court Apple’s stagnation in selecting the parties. About 33 days after the first proposal, he did not even participate in the remedy until November. Judges “seem to be difficult to justify.”
When Google returns to court in the coming weeks, the company’s lawyers will not be surrounded by Apple’s legal team. Although Apple will be allowed to submit written statements and file the information of the court friend, it will not be able to provide evidence to the court or cross examination witnesses, as he searches. Apple argued that he had the right to do so because he had a direct share.
