Google Challenges Search Monopoly Decision, Claims Victory Was Earned Fairly

Google has officially submitted its appeal against the federal ruling that labeled it an illegal search monopolist, claiming the decision “crashed” through established legal boundaries. In its legal documents, Google asserts, “Google just prevailed in the marketplace fair and square.”

The tech giant had previously announced its intention to appeal the ruling, which encompasses the August 2024 decision regarding its monopolization practices and the September 2025 remedies that mandated sharing certain search data with competitors. The appeal brief filed recently sheds light on the company’s strategy to contest Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling.

“We are asking the court to overturn this flawed decision – partners and users have many options and choose Google because it provides the best, most helpful results,” stated Google’s VP of regulatory affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland.

Google contends that Mehta made a mistake by concluding that its search distribution agreements with browser and device manufacturers were anticompetitive. Instead, the company argues that other players in the market simply preferred its services over those of its rivals. Google also claims that Mehta “egregiously exceeded” his judicial authority with the remedies he imposed, which included the unusual requirement for Google to support its competitors through data-sharing and syndication. Additionally, the company criticizes the remedies that necessitate data sharing with generative AI entities, arguing that these players “could not have been affected by Google’s conduct because they did not even exist during the relevant period, and that are already succeeding as wildly as any technology in human history without any need to free-ride on Google’s success.”

The U.S. government, along with a coalition of states that joined the lawsuit, is also appealing the same ruling, asserting that Mehta should have implemented more stringent remedies. The government had sought more significant changes, including the sale of Google’s Chrome browser, which it views as a crucial distribution platform for search services. They argued that comprehensive reforms were essential to address the competitive harms caused by Google.

Now, nearly five years after the initial case was filed, the federal appeals court in D.C. will decide the next steps. Ultimately, the case could escalate to the Supreme Court.