Canada’s British Columbia Supreme Court has officially certified a class action lawsuit targeting Apple over its long-standing search agreement with Google, which the plaintiffs say suppressed competition and drove up ad costs. The certification marks a major step forward for the case, though it doesn’t confirm wrongdoing—it simply clears the way for full legal proceedings.
What sparked the lawsuit
The case was launched in 2021 by Spark Event Rentals Ltd., a companies that rents out event equipment in British Columbia. It alleges that Apple and Google conspired through their deal—where Google pays Apple to be the default search engine in Safari—to limit competition in the search market. Spark claims this deal allowed Google to overcharge advertisers because Apple was discouraged from developing its own search engine.
Originally the lawsuit named both Apple and Google as defendants. However, due to a dispute over an arbitration clause in Google’s advertising contracts, Spark later dropped Google and proceeded against only Apple. The court has now allowed the case to proceed as a class action.
Key points from the recent ruling
Certified by Justice Thomas, the class covers Canadian advertisers who’ve bought Google search ads since 2005—the year Apple and Google first struck their default search arrangement in Safari. The claim includes not only overpayments by advertisers, but also seeks punitive damages.
While the court has permitted the lawsuit to move forward, the decision doesn’t assert that Apple broke the law. Instead, it finds there’s enough evidence to explore whether Apple, influenced by Google’s payments, opted out of competing directly in the search engine market—thus helping Google capture excessive advertising revenue.
The judge leaned on testimony and documents uncovered during the U.S. Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google. That case had already concluded in August 2024 that Google preserved its online search monopoly through deals like the one with Apple. This new ruling references statements made by Apple executives during the U.S. trial, although Apple contested the selection and interpretation of those documents.
What this means going forward
With class certification granted, the path is open for full trial. No trial date has been set yet. Canadian businesses that purchased Google search ads since 2005 are eligible to join the class if they fit the criteria.
This lawsuit joins a growing list of global challenges to Google’s dominance in search, especially its arrangements with partners like Apple. Regulators in the U.S., UK, EU, Japan, and Australia have already been probing whether such agreements reduce competition.
Apple has countered that its agreement with Google was a standard distribution deal, not an illegal conspiracy. It has also argued that Google—not Apple—is the proper target of any legal accountability, claiming it was merely an ‘innocent bystander’ to Google’s conduct.
Analytically, this certification doesn’t guarantee Apple will be held liable—but it does confirm that courts are willing to test whether major tech agreements can give rise to liability under competition laws. What to watch now: the strength of evidence around Apple’s ability (or choice) to build a competing search engine; how damages will be calculated; and whether this case will influence ongoing antitrust efforts targeting search-default deals worldwide.
