Featured image: Photo by khezez | خزاز on Pexels
Canadian Court Greenlights Class Action Against Apple Over Google Search Agreement
A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has approved a class action lawsuit targeting Apple, alleging that its long-standing partnership with Google to set the search engine giant as the default on Safari browsers stifled competition and allowed inflated advertising rates. The ruling opens the door for a legal battle that could reshape how tech giants handle search engine deals globally.
The dispute traces back to 2005, when Apple and Google struck an agreement to make Google the default search engine on Apple devices in exchange for a revenue-sharing model. Over the years, this arrangement has drawn scrutiny from regulators in the US, UK, Australia, EU, and Japan, all raising concerns about Google’s market dominance and potential anticompetitive practices.
In 2024, a US federal judge ruled that Google had maintained a monopoly in search through anticompetitive agreements, including its deal with Apple. Evidence from that trial, including testimony from Apple executives Eddy Cue and John Giannandrea, now forms the backbone of the Canadian class action. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2021 by Spark Event Rentals Ltd., claims Apple and Google colluded to suppress competition, enabling Google to charge advertisers excessively high rates.
Apple has consistently argued that its agreement with Google was a legitimate business arrangement, not an anticompetitive conspiracy. The company initially resisted the lawsuit, positioning itself as an “innocent bystander” and shifting blame to Google. However, the plaintiff later removed Google from the case due to a dispute over arbitration clauses in advertising contracts, leaving Apple as the sole defendant.
Justice Thomas of the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the case meets the criteria for a class action, allowing claims from Canadian residents who purchased Google search ads since 2005. The judge emphasized that the allegations—specifically that Google’s payments to Apple discouraged the development of an Apple-owned search engine—warrant further examination. While the ruling does not confirm anticompetitive behavior, it permits the case to proceed, including the possibility of punitive damages.
In his decision, Justice Thomas cited testimony from Giannandrea, who joined Apple from Google in 2018, and directly quoted Cue’s statements from the US trial. He noted that Apple’s agreement with Google “provided some basis in fact” to infer that the company avoided competing with Google in search due to the financial incentives. The judge acknowledged Apple’s objection to the evidence but stated that “cherry-picking” at this stage of proceedings was acceptable.
The case now moves toward trial, though no date has been set. The outcome could have significant implications for tech regulation, advertiser costs, and the broader search engine market.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the class action lawsuit about?
The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s partnership with Google to make Google the default search engine on Safari limited competition, allowing Google to inflate advertising prices. Plaintiffs argue that Google’s payments to Apple discouraged the development of an Apple-owned search engine.
Why was Apple named as the sole defendant?
The original lawsuit named both Apple and Google, but the plaintiff removed Google after a dispute over arbitration clauses in advertising contracts. Apple remains the sole defendant, while Google is not involved in the Canadian case.
What does the court’s decision mean for Apple?
The ruling does not confirm Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior but allows the class action to proceed. The case will examine whether Google’s payments to Apple hindered competition in the search engine market.
The Hard Truth
Advertisers who purchased Google search ads in Canada since 2005 may seek compensation, but the court has not yet determined Apple’s liability. The case highlights ongoing legal risks for tech companies involved in search engine partnerships, with outcomes likely to depend on evidence from the US trial and further judicial analysis.
Source Attribution
Source: 9to5Mac