Sydney, Australia – December 2, 2025 – In a stinging rebuke to Big Tech’s grip on mobile search, Australia’s Federal Court has slapped Google with a $55 million penalty for striking exclusive revenue-sharing deals with major telcos that locked out rival search engines on Android devices. The ruling, handed down Monday by Justice Mark Moshinsky, ratifies an agreement between Google and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and underscores growing global scrutiny of how internet giants bundle services to dominate digital markets.
The case centers on contracts Google Asia Pacific inked with Telstra and Optus—the country’s two largest mobile carriers—between December 2019 and March 2021. Under these arrangements, the telcos received a cut of Google’s ad revenue in exchange for pre-installing Google Search as the default app on Android smartphones and blocking competitors like Microsoft’s Bing or DuckDuckGo from similar placement. The ACCC, Australia’s antitrust watchdog, argued this conduct stifled competition, entrenching Google’s 90%-plus market share in search and limiting consumer choice at a time when mobile browsing was exploding.
Justice Moshinsky, in approving the joint penalty proposal, emphasized deterrence as the core aim. “The primary if not sole purpose of civil penalties is deterrence of further contravening conduct of a like kind,” he wrote, noting the fine’s scale should ward off similar tactics by Google and others. Google cooperated fully with the probe, admitting liability and jointly submitting the $55 million figure—roughly equivalent to about $36 million USD—as appropriate given the deals’ duration and scope.
The Deals That Sparked the Showdown
The controversy erupted from Google’s Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADAs), which have faced heat worldwide. In Australia, the pacts with Telstra and Optus covered millions of devices sold through their networks, ensuring Google Search launched automatically and couldn’t be easily swapped. Telcos, in turn, pocketed revenue from search ads triggered by their customers—creating a financial incentive to sideline alternatives.
The ACCC launched proceedings in August 2025, after securing court-enforceable undertakings from Telstra, Optus, and TPG Telecom the prior year to unwind similar restrictions. Google and its U.S. parent, Google LLC, followed suit in mid-August, pledging to strip pre-install and default-setting clauses from future contracts with Android manufacturers and telcos. These commitments, enforceable under Australian law, aim to open the door for more search options on new devices.
This isn’t isolated fallout. Google has forked over $10 billion globally in antitrust penalties since 2017, including a landmark $5 billion EU fine in 2018 for similar Android bundling. In Australia alone, a 2022 Federal Court ruling cost the company $60 million for covertly harvesting Android users’ location data—still the nation’s heftiest tech fine to date. The fresh $55 million hit brings Australia’s tally against Google to over $115 million in three years, signaling regulators’ zero-tolerance for digital gatekeeping.
Broader Context: A Global Crackdown on Tech Dominance
Australia’s move fits a pattern of intensified oversight on internet giants, fueled by a five-year ACCC inquiry into digital platforms that wrapped in 2024. The probe exposed how ad-driven models concentrate power, recommending mandatory codes to curb unfair trading and boost rivalry. “Today’s outcome, combined with the undertakings from Google and the telcos, creates the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said in a statement, framing the win as a step toward a fairer online ecosystem.
Overseas, echoes abound. The U.S. Justice Department sued Google in 2020 over search monopolization, with a landmark August 2024 ruling deeming it an illegal monopoly—though appeals drag on. Europe’s Digital Markets Act, effective since 2023, mandates “gatekeeper” firms like Google to allow app sideloading and default swaps. Even in India, antitrust suits target Google’s app store fees. Analysts see these as harbingers: Tech’s ad revenue—$224 billion for Google in 2024—hinges on unchallenged defaults, and fines like this chip away at that fortress.
For risk managers and execs inking digital deals, the verdict is a wake-up call. Insurance Business Mag reports experts urging deeper scrutiny of platform partnerships, warning that revenue shares could mask anti-competitive strings. “Risk managers are being urged to take a closer look at how their organisations strike digital platform and distribution deals,” the outlet noted, highlighting potential ripple effects for insurers covering tech liabilities.
Reactions: From Cheers in Canberra to Shrugs in Silicon Valley
Public and expert responses skewed triumphant Down Under. On X, Australian users lit up with memes of Google as a “search cartel,” one viral post quipping, “Finally, a fine that might make Bing relevant #GoogleDownUnder.” ACCC supporters hailed it as consumer empowerment, with Startup Daily’s coverage drawing praise for exposing telco complicity. Privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation echoed the sentiment globally, arguing such rulings pave the way for diverse search tools amid AI-driven shifts.
Google, ever the diplomat, expressed regret without remorse. “We have worked constructively with the ACCC to resolve this matter and are pleased to have reached an agreement,” a spokesperson said, touting the undertakings as evidence of commitment to openness. Critics, however, see it as a slap on the wrist—$55 million is a rounding error against Alphabet’s $88 billion quarterly revenue. Legal scholars like University of Sydney’s Jake Goldenfein called it “deterrence theater,” predicting more probes unless structural remedies follow.
Impacts: From Aussie Pockets to Global Markets
For everyday Aussies, the fine translates to tangible choice. Millions of Android users—over 70% of the smartphone market—could soon tweak defaults without voiding warranties or deals, potentially diversifying ad dollars and spurring innovation in local search startups. Economically, it pressures telcos to rethink revenue streams; Telstra and Optus, already fined indirectly via undertakings, face squeezed margins in a post-NBN era.
Globally, U.S. consumers might feel indirect waves. As a key Android player, Google’s concessions could standardize looser terms worldwide, aiding rivals like Apple (ironically, via cross-licensing) or emerging AI searchers. Stock-wise, Alphabet dipped 0.8% in after-hours trading, but analysts at Morningstar view it as “noise” amid bigger battles like the DOJ case. For businesses, it’s a reminder: In the antitrust arena, deterrence trumps defense.
This Federal Court smackdown reinforces Australia’s role as a tech-regulation bellwether—small nation, big punches. With the ACCC eyeing app stores next, Google’s Australian ledger could thicken further. Yet, as Justice Moshinsky implied, the real test is whether $55 million bends the search behemoth toward fairer play, or just funds another quarter’s growth.
By Mark Smith
Mark Smith covers global tech policy and antitrust battles for [Your News Site]. Reach him at mark.smith@newsite.com.
Follow and subscribe to us for push notifications on the latest Big Tech fines, antitrust updates, and digital economy shifts—stay plugged in!