In the dense, 150-page ruling on the Google antitrust case, two words stand out as the primary reason a $20 billion partnership was saved: “downstream harms.” This phrase, used by Judge Amit Mehta, explains precisely why he refused to ban Google’s massive payments to Apple.
The judge’s core concern was that abruptly cutting off this massive flow of cash would create a cascade of negative consequences. The first “downstream harm” would be to the direct recipient, Apple, whose high-margin services business would take a major hit. This could, in turn, harm Apple’s investors and its ability to invest in other areas.
Beyond that, Mehta worried about harms to the broader market and consumers. Without Google’s payments, would Apple have to raise the price of iPhones? Would it have to charge for its operating system? The judge signaled he was unwilling to conduct a real-world experiment with such unpredictable and potentially “crippling” outcomes.
By prioritizing the avoidance of these potential “downstream harms” over the direct remedy of severing the anti-competitive payment, the judge made a clear choice for stability over disruption. It’s a decision that highlights the immense challenge of unscrambling an egg once it has been cooked into the economy.