In the End, Fear of “Crippling Harm” Saved Google’s Most Lucrative Deal

The decisive factor in preserving Google’s multi-billion dollar search deal with Apple was, in the judge’s own words, the fear of causing “crippling” harm. This rationale reveals a deep-seated judicial concern for economic stability that ultimately outweighed the government’s arguments for radical, pro-competitive disruption.
In his ruling, Judge Amit Mehta painted a stark picture of the potential consequences of banning the payments. He wrote that such a move would “almost certainly impose substantial— in some cases, crippling—downstream harms to distribution partners, related markets, and consumers.” This single sentence explains why the deal, which the government saw as the root of the monopoly, was allowed to continue.
The judge essentially conducted a risk assessment and concluded that the cure was too dangerous. The risk of destabilizing Apple’s services revenue, potentially leading to higher costs for consumers or other unforeseen economic shocks, was deemed greater than the risk of allowing an anti-competitive arrangement to persist under new, lighter restrictions.
This prioritization of avoiding harm over aggressively restoring competition is a defining feature of the verdict. It demonstrates a cautious, pragmatic approach to antitrust remedies, signaling that even illegal monopolies may be spared transformative change if the court believes that change would create too much collateral damage.