Apple Files Emergency Motion to Stay Google Monopoly Case

Apple has filed an Emergency Motion to stay the proceedings in the Justice Department's monopoly case against Google.

In August 2024, Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled that "Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act." Specifically, the judge found Google to be a monopolist in two areas - search and text advertising.

Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining its monopoly in two product markets in the United States—general search services and general text advertising—through its exclusive distribution agreements.


Notably, the ruling has significant ramifications for Apple, given the search agreement between the two companies. In December, Apple moved to intervene for the remedial phase.

Apple Inc. ("Apple") hereby moves to intervene as a defendant for the limited purpose of
participating in the remedial phase of the above-captioned suit pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure
24.

That motion was denied by the judge for not being timely enough.

Because Apple's motion is untimely, the court must deny it. The court, however, will permit Apple to participate as amicus curiae and file post-hearing submissions to ensure consideration of Apple's views when crafting the remedial decree.


Apple has now filed an emergency motion to stay the case's proceedings while it appeals the denial of its motion to intervene.

Although Apple understands that this Court intends to adhere to the "strict confines of the [C]ourt's Scheduling Order," Order Denying Limited Intervention at 16, Jan. 27, 2025, ECF No. 1153, Apple has no choice but to move for a stay of these proceedings to protect its rights pending appeal. Absent a stay, Apple will suffer irreparable harm: the deprivation of its right to participate as a party in the remedial phase of this case moving forward, including possibly at the trial itself, while its undisputed property rights are adjudicated. These harms are magnified by a position Plaintiffs revealed in a recent meet-and-confer with Apple. Specifically, Plaintiffs represented that they intend to challenge this Court's decision permitting Apple to submit up to two affidavits during the trial. Courts have commonly granted stays pending appeal of orders denying intervention, and this Court should do the same here. In the alternative, the Court should at minimum afford Apple full access to the record as a nonparty until the D.C. Circuit rules.

Apple is concerned that if the court does not permit it to participate in the remedies trial, it and it's users could suffer significant harm.

"If Apple's appeal is not resolved until during or after the remedies trial, 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."

Please download the iClarified app or follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and RSS for more updates.