Law & Court Decisions — 2026-05-25

Supreme Court & Federal Courts

No fresh Supreme Court opinions landed in the coverage window (the Court's remaining term opinions are expected through June). The most consequential federal appellate action this week came from the tech-antitrust docket.

United States v. Google — U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

• Holding: Google filed its opening appeal brief on May 22, asking the D.C. Circuit to reverse Judge Amit Mehta's August 2024 ruling that Alphabet illegally monopolizes online search and related advertising, and to strike down a September 2025 remedial order requiring Google to share search-index data with rivals.
• Vote / posture: Appeal filed; briefing schedule pending; full D.C. Circuit panel has not yet been assigned.
• Why it matters: If the D.C. Circuit sustains even part of Judge Mehta's ruling, it will reshape how Google distributes search — including default-search deals worth roughly $20 billion annually with Apple. A reversal would hand Big Tech a major shield against DOJ antitrust enforcement for a generation.

Tech Antitrust & Regulatory Battles

Google vs. DOJ — U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

• What happened this week: Beyond filing the appeal on the monopoly ruling, Google simultaneously defended its $20 billion annual deal with Apple to be the default search engine on Safari — arguing the arrangement is the product of lawful competition, not exclusionary contracts.
• Stakes: Forced data-sharing with competitors; potential breakup of Google's default-search revenue stream; precedent for AI-search successors.
• Status: Appeal filed May 22; remedial-phase proceedings in the district court continue in parallel.

Amazon & Microsoft vs. European Commission — EU / DMA

• What happened this week: European regulators confirmed in late April that they are investigating whether Amazon and Microsoft should be labeled DMA gatekeepers for their cloud computing services, and whether the Digital Markets Act's existing toolbox is sufficient to tackle anticompetitive conduct in cloud and AI infrastructure.
• Stakes: If designated, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure would face interoperability mandates, data-portability rules, and self-preferencing prohibitions — potentially restructuring how enterprise cloud contracts are structured globally.
• Status: Investigation open; gatekeeper designation decision expected later in 2026.

State AGs vs. Big Tech — Various State & Federal Forums

• What happened this week: A Reuters legal analysis published May 7 documented surging state-attorney-general enforcement activity in tech antitrust and consumer protection. States are now filing independent actions, pursuing co-plaintiff roles in federal cases after federal settlements, and winning — as illustrated by state AGs continuing the Live Nation / Ticketmaster litigation after DOJ settled, ultimately prevailing.
• Stakes: Creates a 50-state enforcement layer independent of federal DOJ/FTC posture changes; increases litigation risk for platforms regardless of which party controls Washington.
• Status: Ongoing across multiple dockets; no single deadline but trend accelerating through 2026.

Other Notable Rulings & Enforcement

• Starbucks Corp. v. NLRB, Fifth Circuit (April 17, 2026): The Fifth Circuit ruled that the National Labor Relations Board wrongly found Starbucks violated federal labor law by serving overly broad subpoenas in a separate unfair labor practice case that Starbucks ultimately won. The decision limits NLRB subpoena authority in labor disputes and signals continued appellate skepticism of aggressive NLRB enforcement under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

• EU DMA Retroactive Fines — Apple €500 M, Meta €200 M: A Reuters roundup published April 29 confirmed that Apple was fined €500 million and Meta €200 million under the Digital Markets Act in April 2025, the first wave of DMA penalty orders to become final. Both companies have appealed. These figures set the baseline for future DMA non-compliance calculations as enforcement widens to cloud and AI.

Case of the Week — Deep Dive

United States v. Google — The D.C. Circuit Appeal

Background: In August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google illegally monopolized the general-search and general-search-advertising markets, primarily by paying billions of dollars a year to Apple, Samsung, and others to be the pre-installed default search engine. It was the most consequential antitrust ruling against a technology company in a generation. A separate remedial phase produced a September 2025 order requiring Google to share search-query and click data with rivals to facilitate competition.

What the court/regulator said: Google's May 22 appeal brief argues the default-search deals are the natural outcome of Google being the best product — not exclusionary contracts that foreclose rivals. Google also challenges the data-sharing remedy as technically unworkable and as a form of compelled speech that exceeds judicial remedial authority. As 9to5Mac summarized: "In an appeal filed today, Google argues that its long-running deal with Apple reflects lawful competition, not anticompetitive exclusion."

Ripple effects: The D.C. Circuit's eventual ruling — expected no sooner than 2027 given briefing schedules — will set the standard for platform-distribution exclusivity across the AI-search transition. OpenAI, Perplexity, and other challengers are watching closely: if data-sharing survives, they gain real-time access to Google's index; if Google wins outright, the existing market structure is legally validated. State AGs who joined the original DOJ complaint could pursue independent appeals even if the federal government were to soften its position. The FTC's still-pending appeal in the Meta antitrust case (filed January 2026) will be read alongside this case to gauge how appellate courts treat "kill-zone" acquisition theories.

What to Watch Next

• June 2026 (window) — Remaining Supreme Court opinions (Court, various): The Supreme Court must release all remaining opinions before the end of its term; pending cases include major rulings on executive power, immigration detention, and potentially AI-related copyright questions. Watch SCOTUSblog's "Opinion Announcements" calendar.

• Summer 2026 — Google Search remedial compliance deadlines (U.S. District Court, D.C.): Even as the appeal proceeds, Judge Mehta's district-court remedial orders contain phased compliance dates. Google must demonstrate it is meeting — or has sought a stay of — data-sharing obligations while the D.C. Circuit case is pending.

• Late 2026 — Amazon/Microsoft DMA gatekeeper designation (European Commission): The Commission's investigation into cloud-services gatekeeping is expected to produce a formal designation decision. Companies have six months after designation to comply.

• Ongoing — FTC v. Meta appeal (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit): The FTC appealed its district-court loss in January 2026. Oral argument has not been scheduled; the case will be a key data point alongside the Google appeal for how courts treat platform-market definitions.

Reader Takeaways

• If you run a business that distributes software or content through Google Search, Apple Safari, or any Big Tech default: the Google appeal means the legal status quo — exclusive default deals — remains in place for at least another 1–2 years while courts deliberate. Do not assume the remedy orders will stick; build contingency plans for both outcomes.

• If you build tech products competing with Google, Amazon, or Microsoft in search, cloud, or AI: the EU's DMA cloud investigation is the fastest path to concrete competitive relief right now. The U.S. appeal will take years; EU gatekeeper designations move on a 12–18 month timeline and carry mandatory interoperability obligations.

• If you're a consumer, the practical takeaway is that search and cloud markets will remain highly concentrated for the foreseeable future. Google's default-search dominance will not unwind during the appeal. However, escalating state AG enforcement — especially in consumer-protection cases — is an emerging check on platform behavior that operates independently of federal politics.