The judge says that Apple waited too long to defend its $20 billion deal with Google.

A federal judge ruled last summer that Google's payment of $2 billion to Apple for it to become the default search engine on Cupertino company devices was illegal.

Several executives from Apple testified in the case, but a request to present three additional witnesses was denied by the judge, who said that Apple had waited too long...

The Story So Far

If you perform a web search by typing your query into Safari's integrated bar, this search will (unless you have manually changed the default settings) be performed on Google. This is because Google pays Apple $1 billion each year for this privilege.

It's a good deal for Google, as it receives a large amount of its user traffic from Apple users and thus the opportunity to place advertisements in front of them. Apple customers are also particularly valuable demographic for advertisers, thanks to their higher-than-average incomes.

It's also a good move for Apple because it's free money. They need to set a default value, and Google is the most well-known search engine, so they would probably do it anyway.

The exact amount has never been revealed, and Apple hides it in its service revenue, but it was estimated to have gradually increased from a few billion dollars at its origin until about $20 billion today.

These estimates seem to have been fairly accurate, as the antitrust trial against Google led to the accidental revelation of the year 2022, which was indeed $20 billion.

A judge ruled that Google did indeed engage in unfair competition towards Apple by making the payment and proposed that he should no longer do so for the next ten years. This would mean a significant drop in Apple's service revenue.

The rest of the case concerns whether the proposed remedy will be finalized or modified.

Apple wanted to add witnesses, but the judge refused.

The day before Christmas, December 23rd, Apple submitted a last-minute request to present three additional witnesses to help defend its own position. (It is important to note that Apple is not accused of faults in accepting the payment, but it has an obvious financial interest in the outcome.)

However, the Court Journal reports that the judge refused this request, telling the company that it was waiting too late for it, which would now add an unacceptable delay to the trial.

The United States District Judge Amit Mehta explained in his decision that Apple's move was tardy and therefore had to refuse the motion to address [...].

Apple knew (or should have known) that waiting two and a half months to intervene in a procedure designed to last a total of eight months would constitute a significant delay," said Mehta, referring to his planned judgment on damage processing in August 2025.

Mehta said there would be a direct delay caused by the additional testimony; probably further delays caused by Apple limiting its testimony to specific issues raised; and by opening the door to similar requests from other companies like Samsung and AT&T, with whom Google has similar arrangements.

The judge will allow Apple to submit an amicus curiae brief, which he will take into account in his final ruling. An amicus curiae brief – literally a contribution of an "amicus" (friend) of the court – is a document submitted by someone who is not part of the proceedings but believes they can provide context or advice that could be useful to the judge.

Photo taken by Firmbee.com on Unsplas