Confirmed monopoly? Court documents reveal how Google curbs Apple's search ambitions.

The US Department of Justice has claimed that Google pays Apple between $4 billion and $7 billion annually to ensure that Google Search is the default search engine on Apple devices such as the iPhone and iPad.

According to media reports, newly disclosed court documents reveal that Google was concerned as early as 2014 that Apple was directing users away from Google and towards other websites. Specifically, Safari recommended websites to users, who could then directly access those websites.

The reports indicate that the US Department of Justice presented a PowerPoint document in court, in which Google predicted that the feature introduced by Apple would significantly impact its revenue. Then, in 2016, Google and Apple renegotiated their agreement, with Apple agreeing to keep its search functionality largely the same as it was in September 2016.

Internal communications show that Google attempted to use the agreement with Apple to prevent Apple from expanding its presence in the search field and to protect Google's share of searches conducted by Apple device users, which brings in billions of dollars in advertising revenue each year.

Court records show that Daniel Alegre, a Google executive responsible for overseeing the deal, wrote in an internal email in June 2016:

"We are working to create a structure that prevents them from shifting queries and undermining value."

This evidence may help the US Department of Justice prove that the revenue-sharing agreements Google entered into with companies like Apple hindered innovation in the search field and harmed consumer interests.

An internal email from August 2018 seems to confirm this. Joan Braddi, a Google executive in charge of search partnerships, wrote that the updated agreement allowed Apple to provide "Siri suggestions," but in a limited manner.

These documents help explain why Apple made only incremental changes to the web search functionality on Safari and iOS, despite acquiring two search technology startups and hiring former Google search executive John Giannandrea in 2018.

David Olson, a professor of antitrust law at Boston University School of Law, stated:

"Apple may have been nervous about relying so heavily on Google search and may have wanted to see if they could do something better or eventually keep everything in-house."

Earlier this month, it was reported that Apple has developed a new search engine called "Pegasus," but it is currently not expected to be a competitor to Google Search.

If the US Department of Justice wins the case, Google may be forced to modify or abolish these agreements, which could jeopardize its search traffic.

Last month, the US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Google for monopolizing the search market, and last week, the department called its final witness to testify. Over the past six weeks, government lawyers have questioned prominent witnesses, including Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Apple's Senior Vice President of Services Eddy Cue, and Google's Vice President of Ads Jerry Dischler.Most of the evidence in the case focuses on a key issue: whether Google's dominant position in the search field and its agreements with other companies have hindered competition, as claimed by the US Department of Justice.

According to reports, "evidence submitted by the Department of Justice in September this year shows that Google also used its default search agreement with Samsung to block competition from Branch." Branch is a startup that developed a search engine that indexes pages from applications rather than the web. Samsung had previously collaborated with Branch to improve its device's search functionality.

Based on the testimony of Alex Austin, former CEO of Branch, Google began discussing expanding its agreement with Samsung in 2020 to prevent Samsung from pre-installing any other internet-connected search products. Austin stated that this move forced Branch to significantly reduce its product range.

Megan Gray, former lawyer for DuckDuckGo, a competitor of Google in the internet search engine market, commented in an interview:

"The reason the Department of Justice presented evidence is because Google blocked any channel that attempted to become a universal search provider on these devices."

Finally, if the Department of Justice wins the case, it could force Google to modify or abolish its default search engine agreements with Apple, Samsung, and other companies. This could make it easier for users to choose alternative search engines, thereby jeopardizing a significant portion of Google's search traffic. The trial is expected to conclude in mid-November.