By Max Kalsner Kershen
This past September, a district court judge of the District of D.C. ruled on the remedies in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against tech giant Google. The remedies decision comes after Google was found to be in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act for its monopoly in search services and search text advertising.[1] Part of the remedies ruling focused on the exclusive agreements between Google and other companies, noting their anticompetitive effects and support in maintaining its monopoly on general search services.[2]
However, recent reporting shows that Apple is looking to implement Google Gemini models into Siri for upcoming IOS updates as soon as Spring 2026.[3] Early signs indicate the Gemini will run planner and summarizer services with extensive backend implementation.[4] The technology will be marketed and presented as Apple’s, running on the phone giant’s servers and user interface, however, Gemini will be filling the gaps for Apple’s own LLM system.[5]
Although not yet formally announced, the implementation raises some questions as to how the deal will comport with the ruling in Google Search. To reiterate, the court saw “stripping away the exclusivity” of the exclusive distribution agreements as a strong method of remedying the anticompetitive effects and conduct.[6] Furthermore, the remedies effectively prevented Google from “entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the Gemini App.”[7] In addition, agreements cannot be conditioned on the licensing, preloading, or placement of services including the Gemini app.[8]
Antitrust scholars examining the remedies decision saw the restrictions on exclusive dealing as too narrow and seemingly inconsistent with the liabilities ruling of last year.[9] Law professors Erik Hovenkamp and Douglas Melamed examined the remedies in relation to the “purposes of antitrust remedies,” which include (1) the termination of illegal conduct and (2) restoration of injured competition.[10] However, the District Judge Mehta’s remedies, especially in light of emerging artificial intelligence technology, view continued exclusive agreement payments as “more palatable” than when the liability phase concluded, falling short of the noted “purposes.”[11]
Because of the permissiveness of the exclusive agreements remedy, especially regarding artificial intelligence and Google’s Gemini model, it is not farfetched to believe that Apple’s intended implementation of Gemini into Siri, and the agreement that allowed for this inclusion, will not be found to violate the recent remedies decision. It is unclear how the deal is structured and the actual usage agreements, so a full understanding of the remedies implementation and its impact on Google’s economic behavior remain to be seen until the official 2026 announcement and rollout.
Max Kalsner Kershen is a second-year law student from West Hartford, Connecticut. Max graduated from Vanderbilt University in 2024 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Double Bass Performance and Law, History, & Society.
[1] United States et al. v. Google LLC, No. 20-cv-3010, 2025 WL 2523010, at *5 (D. D.C. Sept. 2, 2025).
[2] See Id. at **5-6
[3] Benjamin Mayo, Apple’s New Siri Will Secretly Use Google Gemini Models Behind the Scenes, 9TO5MAC (Nov. 3, 2025), https://9to5mac.com/2025/11/03/apple-iphone-new-siri-google-gemini-deal/.
[4] See Id.
[5] See Id.
[6] Google, 2025 WL 2523010, at *53.
[7] Press Release, Department of Justice, Department of Justice Wins Significant Remedies Against Google (Sept. 2, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-wins-significant-remedies-against-google.
[8] Id.
[9] See Erik Hovenkamp & Douglas Melamed, Appraising the Google Search Antitrust Remedies, PROMARKET (Sept. 23, 2025), https://www.promarket.org/2025/09/23/appraising-the-google-search-antitrust-remedies/.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
