Google, the world’s dominant search engine, is once again in the regulatory spotlight—this time in Australia. On August 19, 2025, the tech giant agreed to pay a hefty A$55 million fine (about $36 million USD) after Australia’s consumer watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), found that Google had struck anticompetitive deals with the nation’s two largest telecommunications companies, Telstra and Optus. The arrangements, which spanned from late 2019 through March 2021, saw Google paying the telcos to pre-install its search application on Android smartphones, effectively locking out rival search engines and limiting consumer choice.
According to the ACCC, these deals were more than just a matter of convenience for users—they were a strategic move that profoundly impacted the competitive landscape. By sharing advertising revenue generated from Google Search on Android devices with Telstra and Optus, Google secured exclusive placement for its search engine on millions of smartphones sold across Australia. In return, Telstra and Optus agreed not to offer any alternative search engines on those devices, a restriction that lasted for 15 months. The ACCC’s investigation revealed that this arrangement “substantially lessened competition,” a conclusion that Google itself admitted as part of the settlement.
“Today’s outcome has 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,” said ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb, as reported by Reuters and Silicon UK. The sentiment was echoed in multiple statements from the ACCC, underscoring the wider impact of the decision on both consumers and the broader tech ecosystem.
For the telcos, the financial incentives were clear. Telstra and Optus, Australia’s telecommunications heavyweights, received a share of the advertising revenue generated by Google searches performed on the pre-installed app. This mutually beneficial relationship, however, came at the expense of consumer choice and the ability of rival search engines to reach Australian users. As Hindustan Times pointed out, the exclusive pre-installation of Google Search “restricted the telcos from offering any alternative search engines on devices sold to customers.”
In the wake of the ACCC’s findings, Google agreed not only to pay the fine but also to a court-enforceable undertaking. This legal commitment requires Google to remove restrictive provisions from its contracts with Android phone manufacturers and telcos, ensuring that such anticompetitive arrangements cannot be replicated in the future. In practical terms, this means Android device makers and carriers in Australia will have more freedom to pre-load different search engines and browsers, giving consumers a broader range of options right out of the box.
Google, for its part, appeared eager to put the episode behind it. “We’re pleased to resolve the ACCC’s concerns, which involved provisions that haven’t been in our commercial agreements for some time,” a Google spokesperson said, as reported by Reuters and ABC News. The company also emphasized its commitment to “providing Android device makers more flexibility to pre-load browsers and search apps, while preserving the offerings and features that help them innovate, compete with Apple, and keep costs low.”
Telstra and Optus, meanwhile, have both stated that they fully cooperated with the ACCC’s investigation and have promised not to sign similar agreements with Google to pre-install its search product since 2024. Optus, owned by Singapore Telecommunications (SingTel), did not immediately comment further on the matter, but Telstra referred reporters to its earlier statement affirming its compliance with the regulator’s requirements.
The case is now before the Australian Federal Court, with both Google and the ACCC jointly submitting that the A$55 million fine is an appropriate penalty. The court must still decide whether to formally approve the settlement, but the cooperative approach between the regulator and the tech company has helped avoid what could have been a lengthy and contentious legal battle.
This is far from Google’s only recent brush with regulators in Australia. Just last week, an Australian court mostly ruled against Google in a lawsuit brought by Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, which accused both Google and Apple of blocking rival app stores on their operating systems. In another regulatory move, Australian authorities recently added Google’s YouTube to a ban on social media platforms for users under 16, reversing an earlier decision to exempt the video-sharing site. These setbacks highlight the increasingly complex and challenging environment that Google faces in Australia—a microcosm of broader global scrutiny of Big Tech’s business practices.
The context for these regulatory actions is important. Around the world, governments and watchdogs have grown more assertive in their efforts to rein in the power of major technology companies, especially when it comes to market dominance and competition. In the United States, Google’s agreements with phone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to maintain its default search engine status were a major focus of a Department of Justice case that resulted in a landmark ruling against Google’s monopoly practices just last year. In Europe, similar cases have examined how Google uses its position in search and advertising to influence device makers, app developers, and ultimately, the choices available to users.
The Australian decision is a reminder that regulators are increasingly willing to take on tech giants and impose significant penalties for conduct that stifles competition. For consumers, the ruling could mean more search engine options on new Android smartphones—a small but meaningful shift in a market where Google’s dominance has long seemed unassailable. For Google, it’s yet another signal that the company must adapt its business practices to comply with evolving regulatory expectations, not just in Australia but around the world.
As ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb noted, the timing of the agreement is especially relevant as “AI search tools are revolutionising how we search for information, creating new competition.” The hope among regulators and consumer advocates is that by opening up the playing field, new and innovative search providers will have a better shot at reaching users and challenging Google’s supremacy.
For now, all eyes are on the Australian Federal Court as it weighs the proposed penalty. Whatever the outcome, the case stands as a significant moment in the ongoing debate over competition, consumer choice, and the future of digital platforms in a rapidly changing technological landscape.
With the ACCC’s intervention, Google’s concessions, and the telcos’ cooperation, Australia’s smartphone users may soon find themselves with more freedom to choose how—and with whom—they search the web.
