DOJ and states appeal Google search antitrust remedies ruling

The U.S. Justice Department and a coalition of states plan to appeal a federal judge’s remedies ruling in the Google search antitrust case.

The appeal challenges a decision that found Google illegally monopolized search but stopped short of imposing major structural changes, such as forcing a divestiture of Chrome or banning default search deals outright.

What’s happening. The DOJ and state attorneys general filed notices of appeal yesterday, challenging U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s September remedies ruling, Bloomberg and Reuters reported.

• Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google unlawfully maintained its search monopoly through default search agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other device makers. Those deals cost Google more than $20 billion a year and blocked rivals from key distribution channels.
• After a second remedies trial in 2025, Mehta rejected the government’s request to force Google to divest Chrome or prohibit payments for default search status. Instead, he ordered Google to rebid its default search and AI app contracts annually.

Why we care. The appeal means we still don’t know how much Google will keep controlling where search gets placed. And that control basically decides who wins traffic. If stricter fixes happen, it could change default search settings, open the door to rival search engines, and shift how people use search across devices.

Yes, but. The DOJ and states haven’t detailed their legal arguments. Court filings didn’t specify which parts of the ruling they will challenge, though attention is expected to focus on Chrome and Google’s default search deal with Apple.

What to watch. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to hear the case later this year. For now, it’s business as usual for Google — though its most important contracts now face annual review, and the risk of tougher remedies remains firmly on the table.

What they’re saying. David Segal, Yelp’s vice president of public policy, welcomed the appeal. In a statement shared with Search Engine Land, Yelp said the trial court’s remedies do not go far enough to restore real competition in search:

• “Unfortunately, the measures put forth in the trial court’s remedy decision are unlikely to restore competition — for instance, it allows for Google to continue to pay third parties for default placement in browsers and devices, which was the primary mechanism by which Google unlawfully foreclosed competition to begin with.
• “Internet users, online advertisers and others who rely on and seek to compete in the industry deserve a level playing field with more, higher quality, and fairer search options — and the need for a more competitive space is all the more clear as Google seeks to leverage its vast power over the web, especially search indexing and ranking, to come to dominate the GenAI space.”

View the full article