Highlights:
-
Google has asked a federal appeals court to delay an order requiring it to share search data with competitors, including OpenAI
-
The request follows a 2024 ruling that Google illegally monopolized online search
-
Judge Amit Mehta found Google abused default search agreements to block rivals
-
Google argues users choose its services voluntarily, not due to coercion
- Advertisement - -
Other remedies, including privacy and security safeguards, would remain in place during the appeal
Google has asked a US federal appeals court to pause an order that would require the company to share key search data with competitors while it appeals a landmark antitrust ruling that found it illegally monopolized online search. The request marks the latest development in a closely watched case that could reshape competition in search, digital advertising, and artificial intelligence.
The appeal centers on a sweeping decision issued in 2024 by US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C. In that ruling, Judge Mehta concluded that Google had violated antitrust law by maintaining its dominance in online search and text-based advertising through unlawful practices. Central to the finding was Google’s use of exclusive distribution agreements that made its search engine the default option on smartphones, browsers, and other devices, limiting consumer choice and restricting rivals’ access to key markets.
Google appeals monopoly ruling and challenges data-sharing remedy
In its latest court filings, Google argued that Judge Mehta exceeded his authority when crafting remedies designed to restore competition. Google’s primary objection focuses on a requirement that would force the company to share proprietary search data with rivals, including companies developing artificial intelligence products.
Google said complying with the data-sharing order before the appeal is resolved could cause permanent harm. According to the company, once sensitive search data is disclosed, the damage cannot be undone even if a higher court later overturns or narrows the ruling.
“The order risks exposing sensitive information that cannot be undone,” Google said in its filing. The company asked the appeals court to pause the data-sharing requirement until the legal challenge is complete.
Google argues users choose its products voluntarily
Google has consistently maintained that its dominance in search is the result of consumer preference rather than anticompetitive conduct. In its appeal, Google reiterated that users choose its search engine because they find it useful and effective, not because they are forced to use it.
Google argues that default placement agreements do not prevent consumers from switching search engines and that competition is only a click away. The company also points to rapid changes in the technology sector, particularly the rise of artificial intelligence, as evidence that the market remains highly competitive.
In a related blog post, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, criticized the ruling for failing to account for the pace of innovation. She said Google faces competition from established technology companies as well as well-funded startups, especially in AI-driven search and digital advertising.
Google says it will comply with other remedies during appeal
While seeking to delay the data-sharing requirement, Google stressed that it is not attempting to halt all aspects of Judge Mehta’s remedies. The company said it would continue to comply with orders related to privacy protections and security safeguards for user data while the appeal proceeds.
Google said it is prepared to do “everything short of turning over its data or providing syndicated results and ads” during the appeal. This distinction is intended to show that Google is not ignoring the court’s authority but is instead seeking temporary relief from what it views as the most damaging requirement.
Background of the Google antitrust case
The case against Google dates back to 2020, when the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit during the first term of former President Donald Trump. The government accused Google of unlawfully maintaining its monopoly through a series of exclusive agreements with device makers and browser companies.
The trial took place in the fall of 2023, with extensive testimony about Google’s business practices and market power. In August 2024, Judge Mehta issued his ruling, finding that Google had illegally monopolized the search market. He cited multibillion-dollar agreements with companies such as Apple and Samsung, under which Google paid more than $20 billion annually to secure default search placement.
According to the court, these deals blocked rivals from critical distribution channels and reinforced Google’s dominance in search and advertising.
Google remedies include limits but not breakup
After a second trial in spring 2025 focused on remedies, Judge Mehta declined a Justice Department request to force Google to sell its Chrome browser. Instead, he allowed Google to continue paying for default placement of its search engine and AI apps, but ordered that those agreements be rebid annually to give competitors a greater opportunity to compete.
The data-sharing requirement emerged as one of the most controversial remedies, particularly because of its potential impact on Google’s proprietary systems and trade secrets.
What the Google appeal could mean for search and AI
The appeals court’s decision on whether to grant Google a delay could have significant consequences for the future of competition in online search and artificial intelligence. If the data-sharing order is paused, Google would retain control over its search data during the appeal, potentially slowing changes in the market. If the court refuses, competitors could gain access to information that reshapes how search and AI products are developed.
For now, Google’s request highlights the high stakes of the case and underscores how central Google remains to debates over competition, innovation, and market power in the digital economy.
