Google just flipped the table. Honestly, if you thought the search monopoly drama was cooling off, Friday's legal filing proved the exact opposite. By officially appealing Judge Amit Mehta's landmark ruling, Google isn't just defending its business model—it’s trying to freeze the most significant antitrust remedies we've seen in decades.
This is the big story in competition law news today. It’s messy, it’s high-stakes, and it basically ensures that the "search war" will drag on through 2026 and likely well beyond. While the DOJ wants to crack open the Google ecosystem, the tech giant is betting that an appeals court will see things differently, specifically arguing that the court failed to account for the "rapid pace of innovation" coming from AI competitors.
The Google Appeal: A High-Stakes Gamble
On January 16, 2026, Google filed its notice of appeal against the 2024 ruling that found it illegally maintained a monopoly in search and search advertising. Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s VP of Regulatory Affairs, didn't hold back. She claimed the court fundamentally misunderstood why people use Google. According to her, users stay because they want to, not because they’re forced to by some shadowy backroom deal.
The appeal is a strategic move to pause the "data-sharing" mandates.
Remember those remedies? Judge Mehta had ordered Google to share its raw search interaction data with rivals. To Google, that’s a privacy nightmare and a gift to competitors who haven’t put in the work. By filing this appeal now, Google is effectively asking for a "stay"—a legal pause—on those requirements. If they get it, the status quo stays put for another year or two while the lawyers argue.
What the DOJ wanted vs. What they got
It’s kind of wild when you look at the gap between the DOJ’s dreams and the court’s reality.
- The "Nuclear Option": The DOJ pushed hard for structural remedies. They wanted Google to sell off Chrome or even Android. Basically, a corporate lobotomy.
- The "Slap on the Wrist": In September 2025, Judge Mehta rejected the breakup. He went with behavioral restrictions instead.
- The Data Mandate: The biggest pill to swallow was the requirement to provide "syndication services" to competitors.
The FTC Is Watching the "Quiet" Acquisitions
While Google is fighting in the courtroom, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is busy looking at a different kind of "cheating." On January 17, 2026, reports surfaced that FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson is putting a microscope on "acqui-hires." This is when a Big Tech firm doesn't buy a startup—they just hire all the employees and license the tech.
👉 See also: Murray Feed and Seed: What Most People Get Wrong
It’s a clever way to sidestep merger reviews. If there's no merger, there's no paperwork, right? Wrong. The FTC is catching on. They’re looking at deals like Microsoft’s $650 million "licensing fee" that brought in Top AI talent and Meta’s massive spend to bring over key leadership from other firms without a formal acquisition.
New Rules for 2026: The HSR Threshold Update
If you're a business owner or a lawyer, you can't ignore the math that just changed. On January 14, 2026, the FTC officially raised the bar for merger filings.
Because the economy grew, the "Size of Transaction" threshold for the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act is jumping from $126.4 million to $133.9 million. This goes into effect in mid-February. It basically means if your deal is smaller than $133.9 million, you might not have to tell the government about it. But don't get too excited—the filing fees also went up. If you're doing a mega-deal worth over $5.8 billion, be ready to write a check for $2.46 million just for the privilege of being reviewed.
Europe and the DMA Stand-Off
Across the Atlantic, the mood is even more tense. Teresa Ribera, the EU’s competition chief, just reaffirmed that the Digital Markets Act (DMA) isn't a "bargaining chip." Washington is getting annoyed. They think the EU is unfairly targeting American companies like Apple and Meta.
Apple is currently facing the heat in multiple jurisdictions at once. In India, the Competition Commission (CCI) just issued a "final warning" to Apple. They’ve been investigating Apple’s App Store practices for over a year, and they’re tired of the delays. Apple is scared of a potential $38 billion fine—calculated based on global turnover. They tried to pause the case, but the CCI said no.
What Most People Get Wrong About Antitrust
Most folks think antitrust is about "big is bad." It’s not. It’s about behavior.
You can be a giant company as long as you don't use that power to stomp out the little guy or trap consumers. The reason competition law news today is so focused on Big Tech is that the "network effect" makes it almost impossible for new startups to break in. If everyone uses Google because everyone else uses Google, how does a better search engine ever stand a chance?
The common misconception is that these lawsuits will result in immediate changes to your phone or your browser. They won't. The Google appeal proves that these cases move at the speed of a glacier. We are looking at a multi-year marathon where the "winners" are often just the side with the most patience and the deepest pockets for legal fees.
🔗 Read more: The S\&P ASX 200 Explained (Simply): Why Australia’s Biggest Stock Index is Acting So Weird Lately
The AI Wildcard
There is one thing that could change everything: Artificial Intelligence.
Google’s main defense in their appeal is that AI search (like ChatGPT or Perplexity) is already disrupting their monopoly. They’re essentially saying, "How can we be a monopoly if everyone is using AI bots instead of search links?" It's a compelling argument, but regulators are skeptical. They worry that the same companies that dominated the "Web 2.0" era are using their existing wealth to buy up all the AI talent, creating a new monopoly before the old one is even dismantled.
Actionable Steps for Businesses and Observers
If you are navigating the current landscape, here is how you should actually react to this news:
- Audit Your Talent Deals: If you're a tech firm thinking about an "acqui-hire" to avoid a merger review, stop. The FTC is specifically looking for these "talent-only" deals to make an example out of someone in 2026.
- Update Merger Checklists: Ensure your M&A team is using the new $133.9 million HSR threshold for any deals closing after February 13, 2026.
- Monitor Privacy vs. Competition: The core of the Google appeal is the tension between "sharing data for competition" and "protecting data for privacy." Watch how the courts balance this; it will set the precedent for how all user data is handled in the future.
- Diversify Your Search Strategy: For marketers, don't rely solely on Google's current "10 blue links." The court-mandated data sharing (if it survives appeal) will likely lead to a surge in specialized search engines. Start experimenting with alternative platforms now.
The battle lines are drawn. Between the FTC's new thresholds, India's ultimatum to Apple, and Google's "all-or-nothing" appeal, 2026 is shaping up to be the year where "Big Tech" either breaks or becomes more entrenched than ever.