Apple wants to ensure it has a voice in the remedies trial for the Justice Department’s search monopolization case against Google, and filed an emergency motion to stay the proceedings while it appeals the district court’s denial of its request to be more directly heard in the case.
The remedies phase of the trial is set to begin in April, since US District Court Judge Amit Mehta already found Google liable for illegal monopolization in the general search market. Even though Apple is not technically a party in the case, it has played a significant role in it — the billions of dollars Google pays Apple each year for default placement on iOS helped convinced Mehta of Google’s monopoly power.
Mehta denied Apple’s request to take a limited role in the remedies phase of the case in an order earlier this week, saying it didn’t file fast enough. Instead, he said, Apple could file post-hearing briefs explaining its views. The DOJ and state plaintiffs had opposed Apple taking part in the proceedings, while Google did not take a position.
Apple believes it now needs to take a role in the case because unlike in the earlier stage, its interests may no longer be sufficiently represented by Google. The government’s proposals to end lucrative deals for Apple — where Google pays for default positioning — “implicates concerns unique to Apple,” it says. Apple worries that Google will need to decide which arguments to focus on most — including the government’s request that the Chrome browser business be spun out — and the ones that concern Apple might not be adequately covered.
Apple writes that if its appeal isn’t handled until after the remedies trial has begun and it’s unable to participate, “Apple may well be forced to stand mute at trial, as a mere spectator, while the government pursues an extreme remedy that targets Apple by name and would prohibit any commercial arrangement between Apple and Google for a decade. This would leave Apple without the ability to defend its right to reach other arrangements with Google that could benefit millions of users and Apple’s entitlement to compensation for distributing Google search to its users.”
While Mehta hopes to resolve the case by August, Apple says that “the concern about a short delay is outweighed by the need for a fully developed record that includes information that only Apple can develop,” like how the DOJ’s proposals to eliminate Google’s monopoly power would impact Apple, and why they might not work. Apple said in its initial motion to intervene that it would offer evidence that despite the government’s suggestions, it would not create a general search engine were it not bound by its default agreement with Google.
If Mehta doesn’t grant the stay pending appeal, Apple requested at the very least that it gain access to discovery and depositions as a non-party while the Circuit Court considers its appeal. “Absent a stay,” the company writes, “Apple will suffer irreparable harm.”
Ticketmaster argued in court that a lack of competition can actually save concertgoers money.
AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File
Ticketmaster and Live Nation want a judge to boot 27 states from the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit.
The event goliath argued Wednesday that the states can't prove a direct injury to their residents.
Opening their venues to multiple ticketers and promoters could raise ticket prices, they argued.
Lawyers for Ticketmaster's parent company asked a judge on Wednesday to stop 27 states from participating as plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department last May.
The 27 states can't prove direct injury to their residents as a result of Live Nation's actions, lawyers for the entertainment giant argued in federal court. More competition could actually result in higher — not lower — costs for concertgoers, the lawyers said, arguing that without proof of injury, the states have no standing to seek damages in the case.
"If Ticketmaster wasn't doing what it was doing, then multiple ticketers could sell for an event, and then the customers would be better off in that world? That is only a theory," Live Nation attorney Andrew Gass told the judge on Wednesday.
The 8-month-old lawsuit is still in its early stages, with no trial date set. It seeks to break up Live Nation, saying the company controls 60 of the country's 100 largest event amphitheaters.
Artists who use these venues are forced to hire Live Nation's own promoters and use its own ticket distributor — Ticketmaster — creating a monopolistic "ecosystem" that harms competitors and hikes costs for artists and fans, the lawsuit alleges.
The 27 states Live Nation is seeking to remove from the case are seeking triple monetary damages on the argument that their residents have been injured by the inflated ticket prices resulting from this lack of competition.
In his arguments before US District Court Judge Arun Subramanian on Wednesday, the Live Nation attorney said concertgoers are too far removed from the alleged monopolistic conduct for states to sue on their behalf.
"There is such an attenuated chain of causation" between the ticket consumer and any exclusivity deals involving artists, promoters, and venues, he argued.
It is inefficient for the states to be "piggybacking" on the federal goverment's claims over the exact same conduct, Live Nation also argued.
In downplaying the idea that competition would cut ticket prices as just "a theory," Gass offered the judge a hypothetical.
Let's say Live Nation allowed its rival promoters to bid for access to its amphitheaters, the lawyer told the judge. Rival promoter "A" would then offer Live Nation a sizable cut of its profits, only to be outbid by rival promoter "B" offering an even bigger cut. "And then the price of the event goes up," Gass argued.
The judge voiced some skepticism.
Subramanian said the idea that consumers would save money if Ticketmaster competed with other ticket sellers for the same event "seems like a very straightforward theory."
Other arguments Wednesday focused on Live Nation's request that the judge dismiss another major part of the lawsuit: the government's claim that artists who use Live Nation event venues are barred from using their own promoters, and instead must pay in-house promoters.
"The policy is that third-party artists may not rent their amphitheaters unless those artists purchase Live Nation promotion services as well," DOJ attorney Arianna Markel told the judge.
"The artist is essentially forced to use Live Nation for its promotion services if it wants to use those amphitheaters," she said. That's exactly the kind of "tying" arrangement that is barred under antitrust case law, she said.
Live Nation is asking the judge to dismiss this claim. On Wednesday their lawyer countered that this isn't "tying" at all — it's simply a company refusing to do business with its rivals, as is its right.
Here, the judge appeared to agree with Live Nation. "I can't force them to rent these amphitheaters to rival promoters," he said.
The judge gave the parties until Monday — and no more than five pages — to file final arguments for and against Live Nation's dismissal motions.
One of Lina Khan's last official statements as FTC Commissioner warned about antitrust concerns stemming from partnerships between AI companies like OpenAI and tech giants like Microsoft.
Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for Fast Company
The FTC released a staff report about partnerships between cloud service providers and AI companies.
The report raises antitrust concerns about deals between industry leaders like OpenAI and Microsoft.
Such deals may deprive startups of key AI inputs and undermine fair competition, FTC Chair Lina Khan said.
The Federal Trade Commission, in its latest staff report issued Friday, suggested that partnerships between artificial intelligence leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic with cloud service providers like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google could be the subject of future antitrust action.
The report outlines key elements of existing CSP and AI developer partnerships that may be subject to federal scrutiny, such as the equity and revenue-sharing rights that underpin these partnerships and exclusivity rights CSPs retain through massive investments with AI developers.
"For an individual using an AI chatbot to write a wedding speech or a small business owner generating logo ideas with an AI image generation model, corporate partnerships may seem abstract or distant," the FTC's staff report reads. "Yet, these partnerships may potentially impact AI model development — including which firms may effectively participate in the marketplace — and may determine many aspects of those individuals' and firms' experiences."
FTC Chair Lina Khan, in one of her last official statements before leaving office, cited the deals between the companies as a reason for "enforcers and policymakers" to "stay vigilant to guard against business strategies that undermine open markets, opportunity, and innovation."
"The FTC's report sheds light on how partnerships by Big Tech firms can create lock-in, deprive start-ups of key AI inputs, and reveal sensitive information that can undermine fair competition," Khan said.
Microsoft and Google have faced particularly pointed antitrust action in recent years. The FTC opened a probe into alleged anticompetitive behavior related to Microsoft's licensing agreements, while Google has faced federal antitrust cases over its advertising strategies and search business.
Google lost one antitrust case in 2024 when US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled it held a monopoly in its search business. Mehta's finding prompted the Department of Justice to propose that Google be forced to sell its Chrome browser as a remedy in the case. A final ruling in the case is expected in August, Business Insider previously reported.
In Donald Trump's incoming administration, Khan will be replaced as Chair by current FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, the president-elect announced in December on Truth Social.
While Khan was the subject of intense political vitriol during the election for her staunch antitrust enforcement, Ferguson, in a post on X, vowed to continue the office's mission to promote innovation and "end Big Tech's vendetta against competition and free speech."
"We will make sure that America is the world's technological leader and the best place for innovators to bring new ideas to life," Ferguson wrote.
Representatives for Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Anthropic, and OpenAI did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.
The Competition and Markets Authority — the U.K.’s antitrust watchdog — is wasting no time in lodging its first official investigation of 2025 under its new rules that came into effect this month. It’s looking into the market dominance of Google in search, including the new work it’s doing in AI search as well as […]
Venu was initially supposed to launch last fall, in time for the NFL season. Now it will never see the light of day.
Armando L. Sanchez/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery have canceled Venu, a would-be sports streaming service.
The companies announced the decision days after announcing plans to launch the service.
What happened in between?
On Monday, the people behind Venu — the sports streaming service co-owned by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery — were gearing up their launch plans after solving a legal challenge.
A few days later, they decided to kill the service entirely — though it looks like what will amount to a different version of the original idea may end up launching, anyway.
The reasoning behind the astonishing decision, via sources at the three companies: the premise of even more legal challenges, which could delay the streamer even more and cost the companies time and money.
While the Venu joint venture settled an antitrust lawsuit with the streaming TV service Fubo on Monday, that decision drew immediate complaints from other TV providers, who said they were being prevented from launching a similar service.
The satellite TV services DirecTV and Dish both sent letters this week to the federal judge who had been overseeing the Fubo court case, arguing that the settlement was a "payoff" and suggesting that they would file their own suits. Other TV providers might launch similar objections, people at the joint-venture companies say.
So on Thursday, Venu's owners decided to bail completely. "In an ever-changing marketplace, we determined that it was best to meet the evolving demands of sports fans by focusing on existing products and distribution channels," the companies said Friday.
And part of that deal will give Fubo the right to launch a new "skinny" bundle of Disney properties that show sports, like ESPN and ABC.
On Monday, when Fubo and the joint-venture partners announced a settlement, Fubo executives also told investors that they had a new distribution agreement with Fox, and suggested that Fox would be part of that skinny bundle as well.
Which would mean that Fubo would end up with the rights to sell a service that looks a lot like Venu — minus the programming WBD was supposed to provide. It seems likely that for now WBD will sit pat with its existing distribution plans — relying primarily on its TNT network, some of which also streams on its Max platform.
Which means Fubo, which a year ago was an also-ran streamer that was shut out of a crucial sports streaming deal, now seems like "the undisputed winner" of the entire mess, as an industry executive told me Friday morning.
A Fubo rep said the company had no news to announce regarding a possible Fox deal. Fox declined to comment.
Meanwhile, Disney is continuing with plans to launch its own ESPN-only service this fall. And in addition to the Fubo "skinny bundle" the two companies announced, Disney has licensed a similar deal with DirecTV. All of which means there are going to be lots of ways to watch, and pay for, ESPN in the next year or so.
Venu Sports, the sports streaming app that Fox, Disney, and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) announced as part of a joint venture in February, will no longer launch, the three companies said today.
The app was supposed to give subscribers access to all three conglomerates' linear channels that show sports, including ABC, Fox, ESPN, FS1, and TruTV. Original content wasn’t expected to launch with the app, but the joint multichannel video programming distributor was expected to represent about 85 percent of the US sports rights market. The app was planned to cost $43 per month.
In a joint statement shared today, the companies said:
In the new year, blockbuster legal cases will play out in US courts.
Major criminal cases include Sean "Diddy" Combs and Luigi Mangione.
In the civil arena, the DOJ's list of antitrust lawsuits will make their way to court.
As we enter the new year, dockets are filling up with blockbuster court cases in the US.
Criminal courts in Manhattan are preparing for the trial of rap mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs and early hearings in the prosecution of Luigi Mangione, who is accused of the killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
In the civil arena, lawyers are gearing up for a year of antitrust lawsuits brought by the DOJ against Big Tech, Visa, and other companies it accuses of monopolizing their industries.
While 2024 was the year of Donald Trump in court, there's still much to be done in the coming year as his fight to clear his rap sheet and zero out his civil judgments continues.
Here are some of the cases Business Insider will be watching this year:
Sean "Diddy" Combs faces criminal and civil cases.
Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP
Sean "Diddy" Combs cases
Sean "Diddy" Combs — founder of Bad Boy Records and the Sean John brand — is due to stand trial in federal court in Manhattan on May 5 on a sex-trafficking indictment that could send him to prison for life. Prosecutors have also warned that a second indictment is imminent.
Given what's already in the record, trial testimony and evidence will be graphic, and the courtroom jousting will be heated. Combs' defense is that he never forced anyone to have sex, and that his accusers have financial motive to implicate him. The trial will likely focus on consent and credibility.
Combs' mother and his six oldest children — who range from teenagers to early 30s — have attended pretrial hearings, waving and smiling at him from the audience. The trial may prove less family-friendly. The evidence includes hundreds of hours of videotape from the rap mogul's sex parties — especially from his so-called freak-off performances, along with testimony by male sex workers who attended the parties. The trial will not be televised.
Separately, Combs faces more than 30 civil lawsuits accusing him of sexual abuse. "No matter how many lawsuits are filed it won't change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted, or sex trafficked anyone," his attorneys recently said in a statement.
Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is awaiting trials on murder charges.
Pamela Smith/AP
Luigi Mangione court case
Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old software developer from a Maryland real estate family, will face state and federal murder charges in Manhattan this year in the December ambush shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He risks a maximum sentence of life in prison and, in the federal case, the death penalty — though it has been more than 60 years since a Manhattan jury has sent anyone to death row.
Both the state and federal prosecutions are in their early days. While Mangione has pleaded not guilty in his state case, he is not set to enter a plea to his federal indictment until later this month.
It's possible Mangione will go to trial in 2025, though it's unlikely. His attorney suggested prior to taking the case that he could pursue some kind of psychiatric defense, which could delay the trial into 2026.
Trump continues to fight for a clean rap sheet and to zero out his civil judgments.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
Donald Trump's court cases
The president-elect's criminal indictments have sputtered to a halt, thanks in large part to the US Supreme Court's July presidential immunity decision. Loose ends remain in the Manhattan hush-money case, as Trump works to clear his rap sheet of its sole conviction before his January 20 inauguration.
There is still no sentencing date, and New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has yet to rule on Trump's demand that the case be tossed in the interest of justice, given the election. Also pending is Trump's Second Circuit appellate efforts to move the hush-money case to federal court.
Meanwhile, Trump begins 2025 with a half-billion-dollars in civil court judgments hanging over his head, all of which he's in the midst of aggressively appealing, including his two E. Jean Carroll defamation cases. A midlevel New York appellate court could keep, trim, or overturn the biggest of Trump's judgments at any time — his massive civil fraud penalty, a debt to New York state that remains frozen on appeal, which has now ballooned to $490 million with interest. He remains a defendant in eight civil cases brought by injured Capitol Police officers and members of Congress involving his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
The Supreme Court could strike down the law banning TikTok from app stores.
Gearstd/iStock, Tyler Le/BI
TikTok ban
In the spring, Congress passed a law that would ban TikTok from app stores in the United States unless Bytedance, the platform's Chinese owner, divested itself from the app.
The deadline is January 19. Bytedance still owns TikTok. A Washington, DC-based appeals court was unpersuaded by TikTok's arguments that its users' First Amendment rights outweigh the national security-based reasoning of Congress's law.
All eyes are on the US Supreme Court to see whether it will strike down the law before the deadline. The court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case on January 10.
Nvidia faces a DOJ probe.
Jaque Silva/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Nvidia
The Justice Department has reportedly been ramping up an antitrust investigation into the chipmaker throughout 2024. Competitors have said Nvidia uses unfair marketing tactics to gain a stranglehold on the market for chips used in AI development, while the company says it simply offers a best-in-class product. If the DOJ brings a lawsuit or comes to a settlement with Nvidia, it'll likely come in 2025.
Meta faces an antitrust lawsuit.
Fabrice COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images
Meta antitrust lawsuit
The Federal Trade Commission sued Meta during the first Trump administration, alleging it had an illegal monopoly on the social media market through its ownership of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The Biden administration has kept up the lawsuit, which scored a major victory in November when a federal judge allowed most of the case to go to trial.
Meta says the company's acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram have been good for consumers. If it loses the trial — scheduled for April — the FTC will seek to force the company to divest from Instagram and WhatsApp.
Another major Google antitrust case is over its role in online advertising. In September, a federal court held a bench trial to determine whether the company formed another illegal monopoly, in the adtech market.
Google claims the Justice Department has overstated its role in the market, where it competes fiercely with the likes of Meta and Amazon.
A decision is expected to come sometime in 2025, with appeals to follow.
Amazon's antitrust trial is expected in 2026.
Amazon
Amazon antitrust lawsuit
In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission and a group of states sued Amazon, alleging it abused its dominance in the online retail space to inflate prices, squeeze third-party sellers with onerous fees, and push its in-house products at the expense of others. Amazon has said it does everything for the benefit of consumers, to whom it provides better products and better prices.
In September, a federal judge knocked down some of the states' claims but allowed the bulk of the lawsuit to proceed to trial. The trial date is scheduled for 2026, with more litigation and appeals expected to take place before then.
OpenAI faces a lawsuit by The New York Times.
NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images
New York Times vs OpenAI
All sorts of content creators — journalists, novelists, filmmakers, photographers — have filed a slew of copyright lawsuits against AI companies, accusing them of illegally siphoning their creations to train their AI models.
The AI companies have generally argued that the use of the material is sufficiently "transformative" to be considered "fair use" under copyright law.
One of the major cases to watch is The New York Times's lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has progressed further than many of the other cases. In January, a federal judge is scheduled to oversee a marathon day of oral arguments over whether the case is on firm enough legal ground to proceed to trial.
Elon Musk vs Sam Altman and OpenAI
In the past few years, OpenAI has become a tech behemoth, setting the pace for generative artificial intelligence technology.
The company is technically structured as a nonprofit that seeks to build artificial intelligence in a way that benefits all of humanity. However, under its leader Sam Altman, OpenAI has signed a lucrative deal with Microsoft, which hopes to harness the tech to drive its own growth.
Now OpenAI is trying to formally convert itself into a for-profit company, shedding the nonprofit label. Musk — who was involved in OpenAI's early stages and who runs a competitor, xAI — is trying to stop that from happening.
The case has been moving at a fast clip, with lawyers for Musk and OpenAI dropping legal filings that reveal internal emails and other records about the other. It's set to continue heating up in 2025 as OpenAI tries to become a corporation.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams' administration was in turmoil before he was indicted.
New York Daily News/Getty Images
Eric Adams indictment
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan accused New York City Mayor Eric Adams of taking bribes from Turkey to fuel his political career — charges that he has strenuously denied. Adams hired Alex Spiro, a hard-charging lawyer best known for representing Musk, to fight the cases. The case is on the fast track and is expected to go to trial in April, before the city's Democratic primary.
An initial pretrial conference in the antitrust lawsuit against Apple is scheduled in February.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
DOJ's Apple antitrust lawsuit
The Justice Department sued Apple in March, accusing it of violating antitrust laws by illegally maintaining a smartphone monopoly. More than a dozen states have since joined the lawsuit against the tech giant, and the initial conference in the case will be held on February 27 in federal court in Newark, New Jersey.
The DOJ accuses Apple of making its rivals' products worse by selectively imposing contractual restrictions on developers and by withholding critical access points from them.
Apple does this, according to the Justice Department, by suppressing the development of cloud-streaming apps and services, worsening the quality of cross-platform messaging with rivals like Android, limiting the functionality of third-party smartwatches unless the owners keep buying iPhones, blocking the development of "super apps," and limiting functions on non-Apple wallet tap-to-pay.
Apple previously told Business Insider that if the lawsuit was successful, it could set a dangerous precedent by "empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology."
"This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets," Apple said in a March 2024 statement to BI. "If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple — where hardware, software, and services intersect."
The DOJ accuses Live Nation, Ticketmaster's parent company, of unlawfully dominating the live music market.
Mateusz Slodkowski/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
The DOJ accuses Live Nation of unlawfully dominating the live music market, stifling innovation, and exerting control over how fans can purchase tickets and where artists can perform. It seeks to break up the company.
A final pretrial conference is scheduled for February 12 in federal court in Manhattan, but the case isn't expected to go to trial until early 2026.
Live Nation previously told BI in a statement that the lawsuit would fail in court.
"The DOJ's lawsuit won't solve the issues fans care about relating to ticket prices, service fees, and access to in-demand shows," the company said in May.
An antitrust lawsuit brought by the DOJ says Visa handled more than 60% of US debit transactions, earning the company more than $7 billion in fees a year.
Visa
Visa antitrust lawsuit
The Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Visa in September, accusing the company of engaging in anticompetitive behavior with its US debit transactions. Initial hearings in the case are expected in January.
The lawsuit accuses the payment-processing giant of entering into contracts with potential competitors that prevent them from becoming actual competitors. By doing so, Visa is able to collect fees that it wouldn't be able to in a competitive market, the Justice Department alleges.
The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York, said Visa handled more than 60% of US debit transactions, earning the company more than $7 billion in fees a year.
In September, a lawyer for Visa told BI the lawsuit was "meritless."
"Today's lawsuit ignores the reality that Visa is just one of many competitors in a debit space that is growing, with entrants who are thriving," Julie Rottenberg said in a statement at the time.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is scheduled for a January 3 contempt hearing.
Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Rudy Giuliani defamation case
This will be the fourth year for the court battle between Rudy Giuliani and Georgia election workers Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and Ruby Freeman.
The former Trump attorney and New York City mayor has owed Moss and Freeman $148 million since December 2023, after a DC judge found his repeated false accusations of election fraud subjected the mother-daughter pair to a barrage of racist death threats. The pair's lawyer complained in court recently that Giuliani has yet to turn over any assets beyond a handful of luxury watches, a Mercedes without a title, and a New York apartment without a current lease.
Giuliani now faces contempt of court for allegedly continuing to defame the pair on his nightly podcast and for what defense lawyers complain has been his heel-dragging in turning over assets and complying with subpoenas.
He is scheduled for a January 3 contempt hearing and a January 16 bench trial, both in federal court in Manhattan. The trial will determine if Giuliani must surrender his Palm Beach condo and three World Series rings.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the U.K.’s antitrust watchdog, has opened an investigation into whether IBM’s planned acquisition of cloud software vendor HashiCorp would affect competition. The CMA said Monday it was inviting comment on the merger from interested parties by January 16. The regulator set a provisional February 25 deadline to decide whether […]
The Federal Trade Commission is investigating Microsoft in a wide-ranging probe that will examine whether the company’s business practices have run afoul of antitrust laws, according to people familiar with the matter. In recent weeks, FTC attorneys have been conducting interviews and setting up meetings with Microsoft competitors.
One key area of interest is how the world’s largest software provider packages popular Office products together with cybersecurity and cloud computing services, said one of the people, who asked not to be named discussing a confidential matter.
This so-called bundling was the subject of a recent ProPublica investigation, which detailed how, beginning in 2021, Microsoft used the practice to vastly expand its business with the US government while boxing competitors out of lucrative federal contracts.
Apple has a multibillion-dollar deal with Google that makes Google the default search engine in Safari.
Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Apple exec Eddy Cue explained why the company has not built its own search engine.
Google has a deal with Apple to be its default search engine, and Apple wants to keep it that way.
The exec explained Apple's reasoning in a filing related to the DOJ's antitrust case against Google.
Apple says it plans to stick to what it knows best, and that doesn't include building its own search engine.
In court papers filed this week in Washington, DC, Eddy Cue, Apple's senior vice president of services, listed the reasons the iPhone maker does not want to create its own search engine.
The filing was made in connection to the Department of Justice's antitrust case against Google, which argues that Google has an illegal monopoly over the search engine market. One of the DOJ's key pieces of evidence in the trial is a revenue-sharing deal between Google and Apple that makes Google the default search engine on Apple's Safari browser on all its devices. Google has been paying Apple for this default search engine status since 2002. Google's payout has increased dramatically over the years, rising to around $20 billion in 2022.
Apple had asked to participate in the trial to defend its partnership with Google, Reuters reported. And in this week's filing, Cue explained the motivation behind the deal, including why Apple uses Google's search engine instead of creating its own.
He gave three main reasons:
Developing a search engine would "cost billions of dollars and take many years," Cue said in the filing. He added that it would divert employees and capital investment away from the company's other areas of growth.
Search is "rapidly evolving" alongside artificial intelligence, and investing in it now would be "economically risky," Cue said.
Search engines require a platform to sell targeted advertising, and that is not a core part of Apple's business, Cue said. He said Apple also does not have the staff or operational infrastructure to build out a successful search advertising business. And he said it could conflict with Apple's "longstanding privacy commitments."
Cue said the DOJ is wrongly assuming that, without a deal with Google, Apple would create its own search engine. Cue said that's not likely, regardless of the case's outcome. And he warned that if the DOJ blocks Google's revenue-sharing deal with Apple, then "it would hamstring Apple's ability to continue delivering products that best serve its users' needs."
Cue also highlighted Apple's revenue-sharing agreements with other search engines. These include deals that give Yahoo!, Microsoft Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Ecosia access to Apple users' Safari search queries, he said.
In 2018, Apple considered buying Microsoft's Bing search engine or investing in a multibillion-dollar deal to allow Bing to supplement some of Google's dominance on Apple devices, CNBC reported in 2023. But the deal, which could have tarnished Apple's relationship with Google, ultimately did not go through, according to the report.
Google has offered up its own proposal in a recent antitrust case that saw the US Department of Justice argue that Google must sell its Chrome browser. US District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that Google had acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search, with the DOJ then proposing a number […]
Google on Friday proposed limiting its search partnerships as a possible remedy to resolve an antitrust case regarding its search business.
Google; Chelsea Jia Feng/BI
Google on Friday proposed possible remedies to resolve an antitrust case over its search business.
Last month, the DOJ suggested that the judge force Google to sell its Chrome browser.
Judge Amit Mehta is expected to rule on the final remedies by August 2025.
Google on Friday proposed limitations to its search partnerships as a potential remedy to resolve antitrust violations in its search business.
The proposal would allow Google to continue partnering with third-party companies like Apple in revenue-sharing deals that make Google the default search engine on their devices, unlike the Justice Department's proposal. However, Google's proposal would make the deals non-exclusive, the company said in its filing.
"We don't propose these changes lightly," Google said in a blog post about the proposal. "They would come at a cost to our partners by regulating how they must go about picking the best search engine for their customers. And they would impose burdensome restrictions and oversight over contracts that have reduced prices for devices and supported innovation in rival browsers, both of which have been good for consumers."
Last month, the Justice Department and a group of states asked Judge Amit Mehta to force Google to sell its Chrome browser to resolve the case. They also asked that Google be stopped from entering default search agreements with Apple and other companies and that Google should open its search engine results to competitors.
Industry experts previously told Business Insider that selling Chrome off would open up the browser market and would likely be cheered on by search rivals and advertisers, though it remains unclear how a possible Chrome spinoff might work.
Both sides will present arguments for their proposals at a hearing scheduled for April. The judge is expected to rule on the final remedies by August.
Kent Walker, Google's president of global affairs, previously said the company intends to appeal the judge's ruling, potentially delaying a final decision by several years.
Representatives for the Justice Department's antitrust division did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
Tim Cook led Apple through a year of highs and lows in 2024.
Chris Jackson/Getty Images
Apple launched new products in 2024, including the Vision Pro and AI-powered iPhone 16.
It faced challenges in China with iPhone sales and antitrust issues in the US and Europe.
Apple also introduced Apple Intelligence at WWDC, marking its entry into the GenAI market.
It's been an eventful year for Apple.
The tech giant launched a brand new hardware product, made its official entrance into generative artificial intelligence, and added a new iPhone generation — all in the span of 12 months.
It's also faced questions about CEO succession, challenges in one of its largest markets, and criticism about being behind in the AI arms race compared to some of the industry's fiercest players. Meantime, it's been under antitrust scrutiny from both US and EU authorities.
"2024 has been a year of notable highs and lows for Apple as it expanded into mixed reality and AI while navigating shifting consumer preferences and market dynamics," Jacob Bourne, tech analyst at Business Insider's sister company EMARKETER, said.
Apple got off to a rocky start this year. Its stock got two analyst downgrades in early January, with bankers citing worries about poor iPhone sales in China. Still, it celebrated wins in the services department of its business and partnered with OpenAI to bring ChatGPT to new iPhones. It explored new territory with the Apple Vision Pro and upgraded company staples, including iPads and AirPods.
Here's a look back at Apple's 2024.
There was trouble in China
Apple CEO Tim Cook speaks at a conference in Beijing, China in March 2024.
Fu Tian/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images
Apple started 2024 with struggles in its important Greater China region — a trend that continued. Analysts called sales of the iPhone 15 in China "lackluster" as competitors like Huawei and Xiaomi stepped up their competition in the local smartphone market.
It showed throughout Apple's earnings in 2024. Although the company beat revenue estimates in its fiscal fourth-quarter, sales in China missed and dropped year over year.
Still, Apple CEO Tim Cook said there are "positive signs" in the region during the fiscal Q4 earnings call on October 31. Cook took frequent trips to China this year — at least three times, as of November — amid fears that Donald Trump's potential tariffs will affect the country that makes a majority of Apple's iPhones, AirPods, Macs, and iPads.
"China's just been a disappointment in '24, full stop," Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, said.
Apple launched the Vision Pro in February
Apple Vision Pro was met with weak demand, analysts previously told BI.
Anadolu/Getty Images
Apple launched its first headset, the Vision Pro, in February. The mixed reality device retails for $3,500, making it one of Apple's priciest products to date.
The headset was met with mixed reactions. Its uses are limited, and it was unclear if the tech was for gamers or professionals. Months after it released, Cook told The Wall Street Journal that the Vision Pro is for "people who want to have tomorrow's technology today."
"At $3,500, it's not a mass-market product," Cook said. "Right now, it's an early-adopter product."
Apple is reportedly slowing down its Vision Pro production and is instead eyeing a more affordable version of the headset.
It was hit with a DOJ lawsuit in March
The US Department of Justice accused Apple of maintaining an illegal monopoly on the smartphone market in an antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ alleged the iPhone maker was involved in "delaying, degrading, or outright blocking" rival technology. Apple denied the allegations.
The suit said the company "repeatedly responded" to competitive threats by "making it harder or more expensive for its users and developers to leave than by making it more attractive for them to stay."
Apple asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit in August, saying the government's argument includes speculation. US District Court Judge Julien Xavier Neals will have to decide whether or not the case will go to trial.
Neals' decision could come as early as January, Bloomberg reported.
Meanwhile, in Europe, Apple was fined about $2 billion related to its App Store and was subject to other competition concerns in the region.
Apple rolled out new iPads
iPads performed well for Apple in 2024.
Apple; Business Insider
As OpenAI, Google, and others announced updates and demonstrated the power of their new AI assistants, Apple introduced new iPads in May.
The latest iPad Pro models are the first to have OLED display; Cook and Co. unveiled them at Apple's "Let Loose" event. Cook said it was "the biggest day for iPad since its introduction."
Although the launch came as Apple watchers waited for a bigger AI announcement, iPads performed well for Apple in Q3.
Apple's official debut into the AI wars, which have escalated since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in 2022, was the "biggest story" of the year, William Kerwin, a technology analyst at Morningstar, said.
The hype around Apple Intelligence was instant. Dan Ives, global head of technology research at Wedbush Securities, said it would usher in a "golden upgrade cycle" for iPhones. Apple said it'd be a big part of the iOS 18 software update too, though Apple Intelligence is only available on iPhone 15 Pro models or later.
The company made some lofty promises at WWDC, and plans to deliver on them after the initial rollout in October and through 2025, although not all the features touted have launched yet. So far, US iPhone users have gotten access to "Writing Tools," AI-generated emojis, and ChatGPT through Siri. The company had been criticized for its late entry to the AI scene.
"They caught up by partnering and by adding AI to something only Apple can do," Munster said.
Meanwhile, the company is reportedly exploring ways it can bring Apple Intelligence to Chinese iPhone owners. Apple will have to partner with a local company if it wants to deliver AI to its most important international market.
The first AI iPhone launched
Finishes for the new iPhone 16 Pro.
Apple
Apple announced its first iPhone "built from the ground up to deliver Apple Intelligence" at its "Glowtime" event in September.
The company faced slowing iPhone sales in the quarters leading up to the launch; the new AI-enabled iPhone 16 was expected by some to be the boost it needed. It released without Apple Intelligence, though that was made available through a later iOS update. It did come with a new camera control button and some software updates.
The phones start at $999 for the iPhone 16 Pro and $1,199 for the Pro Max model. Although a golden upgrade cycle hasn't happened yet, analysts still have high expectations for the next year of iPhones.
"We believe iPhone 16 has kicked off a multi-year supercycle for Apple as the AI Revolution comes to the consumer," Ives said in an analyst note.
It scrapped some projects along the way
Among the new launches in 2024, Apple also axed some ideas that were said to be in the pipeline.
Bloomberg reported in December that Apple would no longer work on building a subscription service for iPhones. The team working to make iPhone ownership possible through monthly fees and annual upgrades was reassigned to other projects, according to the article.
The tech giant also shut down its buy now, pay later service, Apple Pay Later, in June, instead partnering with Klarna to bring its offering to Apple Pay, The Verge reported.
In April, Apple filed documents outlining that it planned to cut more than 600 employees working on projects related to screens and its electric car. Before that, the company reportedly told 2,000 employees that it would wind down its multi-year efforts to make an electric car.
Still, canceling the Apple Car to reassign talent to its Apple Intelligence efforts was part of a "one-two combo" that helped the company catch up in AI, Munster said.
South Korea’s antitrust watchdog has fined Kakao Mobility, the ride-hailing unit of Korean tech firm Kakao, $10.5 million (KRW 15.1 billion) for limiting competitors’ access to its taxi app — lowering the penalty from an initial fine of $50.3 million (KRW 72.4 billion) as the earlier sanction was based on an overestimated calculation of the […]
The grocery industry's biggest potential alliance is toast.
Albertsons said Wednesday that it is terminating Kroger's attempted $24.6 billion acquisition, a day after a federal judge blocked the deal due to antitrust concerns.
In addition, Albertsons filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against its rival, saying it failed to exercise "best efforts" to get approval for the deal.
"Rather than fulfill its contractual obligations to ensure that the merger succeeded, Kroger acted in its own financial self-interest, repeatedly providing insufficient divestiture proposals that ignored regulators' concerns," Albertsons' General Counsel and Chief Policy Officer Tom Moriarty said in a statement.
Albertsons is seeking "billions of dollars" in damages and a $600 million termination fee, which it says it is entitled to under its negotiating terms with Kroger.
A Kroger spokesperson called the claims "baseless and without merit."
"Kroger refutes these allegations in the strongest possible terms, especially in light of Albertsons' repeated intentional material breaches and interference throughout the merger process," the spokesperson said. "This is clearly an attempt to deflect responsibility following Kroger's written notification of Albertsons' multiple breaches of the agreement, and to seek payment of the merger's break fee, to which they are not entitled."
Albertsons' Moriarty called Kroger's approach to getting regulatory approval "willfully deficient" and said the suit is intended to "protect the interests of our shareholders, associates, and consumers."
The suit marks a decisive end of the largest proposed supermarket merger in US history, which faced challenges from the Federal Trade Commission and two US court cases.
Following Tuesday's injunction, both companies told BI they were disappointed by the ruling and would explore their options for next steps.
Lawyers for each side previously said the deal would be called off if it were blocked in Washington.
Andrew Ferguson, one of two Republican FTC commissioners appointed by U.S. President Joe Biden, will be the country’s next FTC chair, incoming president Donald Trump announced Tuesday on social media. The news is being met with relief in some circles. Current FTC Chair Lina Khan was blamed by many in Silicon Valley for a dearth […]
China's top antimonopoly regulator is investigating Nvidia.
The investigation is related to the company's 2020 acquisition of an Israeli chip firm.
Nvidia's stock fell by 2.2% in premarket trading on Monday.
China's top antimonopoly regulator has launched an investigation into Nvidia, whose shares dropped by 2.2% in premarket trading on Monday following the latest escalation of chip tensions with the US.
The State Administration for Market Regulation said on Monday that it was investigating whether the chipmaker giant violated antimonopoly regulations.
The probe is related to Nvidia's acquisition of Mellanox Technologies, an Israeli chip firm, in 2020. China's competition authority approved the $7 billion takeover in 2020 on the condition that rivals be notified of new products within 90 days of allowing Nvidia access to them.
The US-China chip war has been escalating. Last week, China's commerce ministry said it would halt shipments of key materials needed for chip production to the US. The ministry said the measures were in response to US chip export bans, also announced last week.
Nvidia, which is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, has also faced antitrust scrutiny in the US. The Department of Justice has been examining whether Nvidia might have abused its market dominance to make it difficult for buyers to change suppliers.
Nvidia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider made outside normal working hours.
