Google forced to renegotiate its default search contracts every year

Google has just suffered another judicial setback in the United States. Federal Judge Amit Mehta ruled that all contracts allowing Google to be the default search engine or AI application on smartphones and other devices can no longer exceed one year. A seemingly simple measure, it strikes directly at the heart of the model that cemented Google's dominance in online search.

By limiting these agreements with players like Apple or Samsung to twelve months, the U.S. justice system hopes to reopen space for competition, including in the explosive context of generative AI. At the same time, Google is also required to share part of its ranking data with alternative engines and is prohibited from certain exclusivity agreements.

Why Google finds itself before the US courts

This decision is part of the follow-up to a major antitrust trial against Google. After a ten-week trial, Federal Judge Amit Mehta in Washington ruled in August 2024 that Google had illegally monopolized the markets for online search and search-related advertising.

At the heart of the case : the way Google secured its position as the almost inevitable search engine. For years, the company paid massive sums to giants like Apple, Samsung and other manufacturers or browser publishers to have its engine set as the default, without any user action.

In practice, that meant that on billions of devices worldwide, opening a browser or starting a search automatically meant using Google. For competitors, access to the end user became practically impossible without the user actively changing the default engine, which very few people actually do.

The judge found that this strategy unlawfully maintained and strengthened an already established monopoly, erecting virtually insurmountable barriers for alternative engines, even those that are technologically competitive.

What the one-year limit on default contracts changes

Until now, agreements between Google and smartphone or connected device manufacturers ran for several years. They gave Google long-term visibility and commercial security: as long as the contract lasted, Google remained the default entry point for search.

From now on, the new rule is clear:

• Maximum duration: 12 months per default placement contract.
• At the end of this period, contracts must be renegotiated with no automatic renewal.
• The judge's explicit aim: to impose a strict termination obligation after one year.

Google retains the ability to pay manufacturers to keep that strategic position, but can no longer lock the market on multi-year horizons. Each year, manufacturers and publishers will, in theory, have a real window of opportunity to:

• Reevaluate their search or AI partners.
• Test a new engine or AI app without committing long-term.
• Put Google in competition with other players ready to offer attractive conditions (financial, technological, marketing).

The judge noted that both Google and the Department of Justice admitted they could operate with this one-year limit. That led him to impose a "hard rule" of mandatory termination, considered the best way to make the injunction against the found anticompetitive practices effective.

A direct blow to the “default” model

Google's power does not rest solely on the quality of its algorithms, but above all on the strength of its status as the default engine.

In practice:

• The majority of users never change the default settings on their phone or browser.
• Being preinstalled and set as the default is equivalent to automatically capturing market share and query volume.
• This dominant position then fuels the network effect: more queries mean more data, therefore better models, which further strengthens the technological lead and the ability to monetize through advertising.

By limiting these contracts to one year, the American justice system does not abolish the model, but makes it much more unstable and contestable. Google must now:

• Manage an annual uncertainty over its largest contracts.
• Face the real risk of a major partner testing another engine for a year.
• Negotiate more frequently, potentially with more parties competing for the spot.

For Apple, Samsung and others, the situation becomes more fluid: they can play competitors off each other, renegotiate amounts, and even, in the long run, consider scenarios where they segment their agreements (one partner for traditional search, another for generative AI, etc.).

Chrome will not be sold, but Google will have to open up part of its data

Another central issue in the case concerned Chrome, Google's browser. The Department of Justice had asked for a radical measure: force Google to give up Chrome in order to break the structural link between the dominant browser and the dominant search engine.

Judge Amit Mehta refused to go that far. In September 2025, he issued an important ruling :

• No forced sale of Chrome.
• But an obligation for Google to share certain data used to produce its search results with competitors.
• Prohibition on paying companies to obtain exclusivity for using Google Search, Chrome, or the Play Store.

In practice, this means Google remains master of its browser, but must accept a form of controlled opening of its "search nervous system." The goal is clear: reduce the technological gap with smaller players who do not have the same data volumes or indexing power.

Search engines like Qwant, DuckDuckGo or Brave Search could, in certain specific cases defined by the judgment, access data that are currently reserved for Google. Coupled with the ban on paid exclusivity, this theoretically makes it easier for credible alternatives to emerge against the California giant.

The shadow of generative AI

The timing of this decision is far from incidental. The battle for online search is shifting toward generative AI, with assistants capable of answering questions directly, synthesizing the web and acting as single interfaces to access information.

Several players are already trying to break the "Google = default entry point" lock:

• OpenAI launched Atlas, a ChatGPT-centered browser, with an “all-in-one” approach to search and AI.
• Perplexity is betting on Comet, a browsing experience driven by a conversational agent.
• Microsoft is pushing an agentic Edge, heavily integrated with its AI tools.

These players, as well as even smaller ones, now have a theoretical opportunity each year: try to convince Apple, Samsung and other manufacturers or browser developers to install them as the default solution, instead of Google, or in combination with it.

The constraint of a maximum duration of twelve months makes these experiments less risky for partners: they can test a new provider for a year, then return to Google or switch again depending on the results.

A more open environment, but not necessarily revolutionary

Even though Judge Mehta's decisions are structural, they do not automatically guarantee an explosion of competition. Several factors should be kept in mind:

• The strength of the Google brand : for hundreds of millions of users, “doing a search” is still almost synonymous with “going to Google.”
• Behavioral inertia : even if another engine is offered, many users will stick with what they already know, or will rarely change their habits.
• Google's bargaining power Even without long exclusivity agreements, the company can still offer sums and integrations that are difficult for smaller players to match.

On the other hand, the market architecture is changing. Authorities are no longer satisfied with imposing fines; they are directly attacking the contractual mechanisms that cement Google's dominance:

• Time limits on default contracts.
• Ban on paid exclusivity agreements.
• Forced sharing of certain strategic data.

For alternative engines and new AI solutions, these levers finally create concrete entry points: annual negotiations, access to a minimum amount of data, and the ability to position themselves against partners who are no longer tied to Google for years.

And now? A legal saga far from over

Google has already announced its intention to to appeal the initial decision finding a violation of competition law, as well as remedies imposed in September and December 2025. The Department of Justice could also challenge certain aspects, particularly if the authorities consider the measures insufficient in the long term.

While awaiting the outcome of appeals, these injunctions send a strong signal: US authorities are directly attacking the way Google locked down search and, now, the future of consumer AI through default settings and distribution contracts.

The article "Google forced to renegotiate its default search contracts every year" was published on the site Abundance.