Google, the tech giant whose search engine has become nearly synonymous with the act of finding information online, is once again in the global spotlight—this time for running afoul of Australian competition law. On August 19, 2025, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced that Google had agreed to pay a hefty fine of 55 million Australian dollars (about $36 million in US currency) after the regulator found the company had struck deals with Australia’s two largest telecom operators, Telstra and Optus, to pre-install Google Search as the default—and sometimes only—search engine on Android phones sold to millions of Australians.
According to the ACCC, these arrangements, which spanned from late 2019 to March 2021, effectively blocked rival search engines from appearing on smartphones distributed by Telstra and Optus. In exchange, the telcos received a share of the advertising revenue generated from searches made through the pre-installed Google Search app. This exclusive placement, regulators say, had the effect of “substantially lessening competition” and limiting consumer choice—a serious breach under section 45(1)(a) of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which prohibits contracts that restrain trade or commerce.
Gina-Cass Gottlieb, Chair of the ACCC, did not mince words in her assessment of the situation. “Conduct that restricts competition is illegal in Australia because it usually means less choice, higher costs or worse service for consumers,” she said, as reported by MediaNama. “Today’s outcome, along with Telstra, Optus and TPG’s undertakings, have created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers.”
Liza Carver, ACCC Commissioner, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the broader implications for the digital economy: “Practices such as entering into agreements to ensure exclusivity can limit consumer choice or deter innovation. Digital platforms with significant market power should be aware of their obligations under Australia’s competition laws.”
The fine, while significant, is only part of the story. As part of the settlement, Google signed a binding undertaking to remove certain restrictions on pre-installation and default search engine settings from its contracts with Android phone makers and telcos. Telstra and Optus, for their part, pledged last year not to enter into such deals again. The Federal Court will now determine whether the proposed penalty is appropriate, but for now, the message is clear: Australia is willing to take on tech behemoths to protect consumer choice and competition.
Google, in a statement, sought to reassure regulators and consumers alike. “We’re pleased to resolve the ACCC’s concerns, which involved provisions that haven’t been in our commercial agreements for some time,” the company said, according to MediaNama. Google also promised to continue giving device makers more flexibility to preload browsers and search apps, and to refrain from similar arrangements in the future.
This episode is just the latest in a string of legal troubles for Google, both in Australia and around the world. In April 2025, a US federal judge ruled that Google had violated antitrust law by maintaining a monopoly on advertising. Just earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a verdict that found Google had unlawfully maintained monopoly power in the markets for Android app distribution and Android in-app billing services. Meanwhile, in May, Google faced a lawsuit in Italy from Moltiply, which accused the company of abusing its dominance to favor Google Shopping over competitors for seven years.
Japan, too, has taken action. In April 2025, the Japan Fair Trade Commission issued a rare “cease and desist order” against Google, instructing the company not to pre-install its search engine on Android phones sold in the country. Google Japan called the decision “regrettable,” but said it would comply while continuing to invest in local innovation.
Back in Australia, the regulatory heat has been turned up in other areas as well. Just last week, an Australian court largely sided with Epic Games in its lawsuit against Google and Apple, which accused the tech giants of blocking rival app stores on their platforms. And in July 2025, Australia extended its ban on social media for users under 16 to include Google’s YouTube, reversing an earlier exemption and further tightening the regulatory screws on the company’s operations Down Under.
All these legal battles are starting to add up for Google’s parent company, Alphabet. The company’s latest quarterly report showed a 20% jump in operating expenses, much of it attributed to mounting legal bills—including a $1.4 billion data privacy settlement in Texas and a $28 million payout in the United States to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging workplace discrimination.
For investors, the fine in Australia may seem like a drop in the ocean compared to Google’s vast revenues, but it signals a shifting regulatory landscape that could have broader implications for the company’s global operations. As TipRanks noted, “Google’s $36 million fine in Australia may signal the start of deeper antitrust challenges. The latest ruling shows Australia is willing to confront the company’s dominance, raising the possibility of tougher battles ahead over competition and consumer choice.”
Despite the growing list of legal challenges, Wall Street analysts remain bullish on Google’s prospects, with a “Strong Buy” consensus and an average price target of $217.25 per share. Still, the risks are mounting, and Google’s willingness to adapt its business practices—such as dropping pre-installation and default search engine restrictions—suggests the company is taking regulators’ concerns seriously, at least for now.
For millions of Australians, the outcome of this case could mean a future where choosing a search engine on a new phone is no longer a foregone conclusion. As the dust settles, all eyes are on the Federal Court’s final decision and whether this marks a turning point in how tech giants operate in Australia and beyond.
