Google appeals landmark US search ruling and seeks pause on key remedies

Google has formally moved to challenge the US Department of Justice (DOJ) victory in its long-running search case, filing a notice of appeal and seeking to delay the most contentious elements of the court’s remedy package.

In a statement accompanying the filing, the company said the court’s August 2024 liability ruling “ignored the reality that people use Google because they want to, not because they are forced to”, and argued it failed to account for rapid innovation and growing competition from established rivals and well-funded start-ups.

The appeal is the latest step in the biggest US antitrust action against Google in a generation, one that could reshape how search is distributed across phones, browsers and apps. The case was brought in 2020 and centres on whether Google used exclusionary distribution agreements, including payments to be the default search engine, to preserve dominance.

What Google is asking for now

Alongside the notice of appeal, Google asked the court to pause some remedies while the appellate process runs, focusing particularly on obligations to share search-related data with competitors. Google argued that forced disclosure could expose trade secrets and create irreversible risks for users, including privacy and security concerns, if sensitive information is disseminated beyond its control.

Reuters reported that the remedy order would require Google to share certain data with rivals, including artificial intelligence (AI) companies, and that Google is willing to comply with some other restrictions, such as limiting certain preloading contracts to one year, while contesting data-sharing requirements.

The backdrop: monopoly finding and remedies fight

US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August 2024 that Google had illegally maintained monopolies in search and search text advertising, with the court taking issue with distribution deals that made Google the default option across key access points.

A remedies decision followed in September 2025. Reporting at the time indicated the judge declined to impose the most structural remedies sought by the government, including forcing Google to divest its Chrome browser or split off Android, but still imposed significant limits on how Google can pay for or structure distribution and required measures intended to restore competition.

Antitrust authorities, including the DOJ, also face their own deadline decisions. Reuters noted the DOJ has until 3 February to decide whether to appeal Mehta’s refusal to adopt stricter remedies.

Apple, Mozilla and the “choice” argument

A central element of Google’s defence is that consumers and partners choose its search engine because it is perceived as the best product, not because contracts compel usage.

Google has highlighted testimony from Apple and Mozilla indicating they feature Google because they believe it provides the highest quality search experience for users. That point matters because the government’s case has focused heavily on default settings and the power of distribution, while Google argues defaults are only one factor in a market where users can switch quickly and where new AI-driven discovery tools are changing habits.

Mozilla has separately warned that certain proposed remedies could destabilise independent browsers by disrupting key revenue streams, a reminder that any fix to Google’s distribution engine has knock-on effects across the web’s economics.

What happens next

The appeal will be heard by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a process that can take months and often longer in complex antitrust litigation. In the meantime, the fight over whether remedies should be stayed will determine how quickly any changes hit Google’s business.

Related reading

• AI used more for learning than entertainment, global survey finds
• Google plans nationwide digital celebration for America’s 250th anniversary
• Apple Arcade adds Sid Meier’s Civilization VII

The stakes extend well beyond search queries. If data-sharing provisions proceed, they could influence competition in AI search and answer engines by giving rivals access to information and infrastructure that Google has historically treated as proprietary. If the stay is granted, Google buys time to pursue its argument that the remedy overreaches and risks user privacy.

Google also continues to face separate US scrutiny over its advertising technology business, meaning the company’s regulatory exposure is not confined to search.

The Recap

• Google filed a notice to appeal DOJ Search decision.
• Court’s August 2024 ruling cited as basis for appeal.
• The company asked the court to pause certain remedies during appeal.