During the ongoing antitrust case involving Google, new details emerged about the relationship between Google and Apple that have sparked renewed scrutiny of how search advertising revenue is shared in the tech ecosystem. Reports indicate that Apple derives a substantial portion of Google’s revenue from search ads served in the Safari browser, and this figure has been cited as 36 percent in certain court documents and briefing materials. The disclosure was reported by Bloomberg and has become a focal point in discussions about market power and the economics of search traffic as it passes through Apple devices.
The information surfaced in a surprising way when Professor Kevin Murphy of the University of Chicago, who contributed to Google’s defense as an expert witness, inadvertently revealed the percentage during testimony. The exposure triggered a visible reaction from Google’s lead attorney, John Schmidtlein, highlighting the sensitive nature of the figure, which was expected to remain confidential in the proceedings and kept under seal by the agency involved in the case.
Historical context shows that back in 2002 Apple and Google signed a pivotal agreement in which Google’s search engine would be installed as the default option in Safari, Apple’s own browser. Bloomberg characterizes this agreement as among the most consequential for Google because it ensures access to a vast user base of iPhone and iPad owners. The arrangement underscored the importance of default search partnerships in shaping user behavior and the distribution of search traffic across major platforms.
The Justice Department has cited the deal as evidentiary support for concerns that Google may wield dominance in both search and online advertising markets. The department argues that such arrangements can reinforce market power and influence consumer choice through bundled features and default settings across devices and software ecosystems.
As the trial proceeded, the proceedings were projected to unfold over the course of approximately two and a half months, reflecting the size and complexity of one of the most significant antitrust actions in the history of the information technology sector. The litigation has drawn intense interest from policymakers, regulators, industry observers, and the public, all watching how the case might influence future regulatory approaches to tech giants and competition policy in North America and beyond.
Separately, a separate regulatory action in another jurisdiction involved a fine issued to Google for non-compliance with Russian laws, amounting to 15 million rubles. This development, while outside the primary US- and Canada-focused antitrust proceedings, contributes to a broader narrative about enforcement actions and the consequences for large tech platforms operating across multiple national regulatory regimes.