United States v. Google LLC
25-5016
D.C. Cir.Mar 21, 2025Background
- The federal government and 49 states sued Google under the Sherman Act for allegedly maintaining search-related monopolies via anticompetitive tactics, including exclusive agreements with Apple.
- Apple was a central third party in the litigation, with its default search engine agreement (ISA) with Google heavily implicated in the court’s liability findings.
- Following a bench trial, the district court found Google liable for antitrust violations and set a remedies schedule.
- Plaintiffs outlined broad proposed remedies targeting not just default-status agreements but also revenue-sharing payments between Google and Apple.
- Apple moved to intervene in the remedies phase 76 days after plaintiffs first detailed remedies potentially adverse to Apple, claiming its interests had diverged from Google’s.
- The district court denied Apple’s motion as untimely but allowed limited amicus participation; Apple appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apple’s motion to intervene was timely | Apple delayed, despite clear divergence of interests by Oct. 8 | Apple's interests only diverged upon Nov. 20 proposed judgment | Not timely; delay of 76 days after divergence was unreasonable |
| Whether Apple’s interests diverged from Google’s before Nov. 20 | Interests diverged with Oct. 8 remedy framework targeting revenue share | No clear divergence until Nov. 20 final remedy proposal | Divergence was clear by Oct. 8 as to both status and payments |
| Prejudice to existing parties from late intervention | Prejudice from added witnesses and disrupted schedule | Prejudice overstated; party status needed to protect interests | Prejudice substantial and supports denial of intervention |
| Adequacy of Apple’s alternative participation as amicus | Amicus status, affidavits, and post-hearing brief are adequate | Only full party status would protect Apple sufficiently | Existing amicus measures are sufficient; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C., 595 U.S. 267 (Supreme Court articulating timeliness standard for intervention)
- NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345 (timeliness of intervention assessed relative to pretrial deadlines)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Rsch., Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (scope of remedies for anticompetitive conduct)
- Int’l Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (remedies need not leave all alternatives open in antitrust)
- Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228 (timeliness analysis for intervention in civil litigation)