Can a company people say they choose still be a monopoly? That question is at the heart of Google's latest legal maneuver: on Jan. 16, 2026 the company filed a notice of appeal asking a federal appeals court to pause parts of a sweeping antitrust remedy that a judge says is meant to curb Google's dominance in search.
Google’s appeal follows Judge Amit Mehta’s August 2024 finding that the company illegally monopolized online search through distribution deals with device makers and carriers. The remedies handed down later included annual rebidding of default search deals, and — most controversially — requirements that Google share certain search data and offer syndication services to court‑approved competitors so they can surface Google’s results as their own while they scale.
The appeal and what Google wants paused
Lee‑Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president for regulatory affairs, put the company’s case plainly in a blog post accompanying the filing: people use Google because they want to, not because they’re forced to. Google is asking the appeals court to put on hold specific orders that would force it to hand over parts of its search index and run syndication services for rivals while the appeal is decided.
Google argues those mandates would jeopardize user privacy, discourage rivals from building independent products, and ultimately chill the innovation the company says keeps U.S. tech competitive. The company also told the court the original ruling failed to reflect how quickly the search landscape is changing — especially after the arrival of generative AI.
Why the remedies matter (and why regulators pushed them)
Judge Mehta repeatedly acknowledged the fast pace of change in search and AI as he crafted his remedies. He declined the Justice Department’s request to force a structural breakup — refusing to require the sale of Chrome or to bar Google from paying to be default — but he did write rules meant to open distribution channels that the government says Google's deals had effectively locked up. Those deals, for example with Apple and other phone makers, were shown at trial to include tens of billions in annual payments that the government says foreclosed rivals from critical placement on devices.
The court’s idea of letting qualified competitors access parts of Google’s index or show Google results as their own is meant to jump‑start newcomers. Critics of that approach, including Google, say it’s a blunt instrument: offering incumbents’ output to rivals may preserve short‑term competition but discourage the long game of building independent search infrastructure.
The wider context: AI, Europe and markets
This fight doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Google has spent heavily to weave generative AI into search and other products; that push has attracted intense regulatory interest elsewhere. The European Commission opened a probe into Google’s AI‑generated search summaries over concerns about publishers’ content and compensation. Meanwhile, investors have cheered Google’s AI positioning: market moves after the remedies were announced reflected optimism that AI could be a growth lever even as legal battles play out.
Google’s appeal implicitly asks the courts to weigh not just past behavior but future consequences. If the appeals court pauses the remedies, the status quo — with Google as default on many devices under existing contracts — stays in place while litigation continues. If the pause is denied, Google could be forced to begin sharing data and syndicating results even as it fights the ruling.
What to watch next
The notice goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a court that handles many high‑profile federal cases and typically takes months to a year to issue decisions after an appeal is fully briefed. In the meantime, Google is asking that the most intrusive operational remedies be suspended so it can continue building and deploying AI features without implementing what it calls a disruptive new infrastructure for rivals.
Expect the legal argument to hinge on two competing narratives: the government’s claim that distribution deals locked out rivals and harmed competition, and Google’s insistence that consumers choose its product and that forced sharing would harm privacy and innovation. The case will also likely intersect with parallel inquiries abroad and regulatory questions about how AI models are trained and how content authors are compensated.
Google’s story of user choice plays out alongside a broader industry scramble: the company is rolling out new features such as AI Mode in Chrome and deeper Workspace integrations, moves that illustrate why access to search data matters not only for rivals but for Google’s own evolving products. For more on the company’s product pushes into AI, see coverage of AI Mode in Chrome and developments around Gemini’s Deep Research.
This appeal will be watched closely by tech companies, publishers, privacy advocates and investors. It’s a legal fight about market power, but it’s also a debate about how to regulate a technology that keeps reinventing itself — and how courts should balance remedying past harms against the risk of hobbling future innovation.
No neat ending yet: the appeal begins a new chapter, and the next few months will determine whether the remedies take hold now or wait while a higher court reconsiders the lower court’s conclusions.