A federal judge has handed Big Tech another gift, and this time the winner isn’t just Google—it’s Apple, too. In a major antitrust case brought by the Department of Justice, Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google can keep paying Apple $20 billion a year so that Google remains the default search engine on Apple’s Safari browser. That’s right—$20 billion a year, not for a product, not for a service, but just to stay on top. And the judge says that’s perfectly fine.
This ruling should raise serious concerns for anyone who believes in fair competition and limited government power that protects—not picks—winners in the marketplace. When one company can pay another $20 billion just to stay in first place, we aren’t talking about free markets anymore. We’re talking about monopolies propped up by sweetheart deals.
Google, already one of the most powerful companies in the world, was under scrutiny for using its wealth and influence to shut out smaller competitors. The Justice Department argued that Google’s search engine dominance was hurting competition and harming consumers. But instead of breaking up Google’s control over search or forcing it to change its business model, the judge chose the softest possible remedy. He allowed Google to keep its main money-making partnerships—especially the deal with Apple.
Judge Mehta argued that stopping these giant payments might hurt companies like Apple and Mozilla, which rely on Google’s money. Mozilla’s own CFO even testified that without Google’s funding, the Firefox browser might not survive. That’s a troubling admission. It shows just how much smaller companies have become dependent on the tech giants. Instead of building new products or offering better services, they’re surviving off monopoly money.
This is not how American capitalism is supposed to work. Our Founders believed in free enterprise and competition—not backroom deals between billion-dollar companies. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce to protect liberty, not to protect monopolies. The judge’s ruling may claim to be about avoiding harm to consumers, but in reality, it shields the giants from accountability.
The court’s decision also lets Google ignore “choice screens”—those are the options that let users pick a different search engine when setting up their devices. Without that requirement, Google gets to stay the default by default, and most users won’t even know they have another choice. That’s not consumer freedom. That’s manipulation.
While Google must now share some of its search data with competitors, that’s little comfort. The company already won the big prize: keeping its position as the gatekeeper of online search and its $20 billion agreement with Apple. That’s more than most companies could ever dream of making—let alone being paid just to stay in place.
The fact that Google is appealing the ruling anyway shows how deeply it wants to guard its empire. It doesn’t want to give up even a sliver of its control. That should tell us everything we need to know about the stakes here.
This case shows how deeply our system has been tilted in favor of the powerful. It’s not just about technology—it’s about whether we still believe in fair play. When two of the world’s richest companies can make secret deals to control what information we see and how we see it, that’s not innovation. That’s control.
If we want to restore freedom and fairness in the marketplace, we need courts and lawmakers who will stand up to Big Tech—not make excuses for them. This ruling may be legal, but it’s not right. It’s time to return to the founding principles of limited government, equal opportunity, and true competition.
Because when the richest companies get richer just by paying each other off, it’s not the free market that wins. It’s the monopoly. And that’s not the American way.
