Google on Friday filed an appeal against a United States federal judge’s ruling that the company unlawfully monopolised the internet search market.

The move could delay the implementation of remedies against the Alphabet-owned firm as the legal process continues.

Reacting to the 2024 decision, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Lee-Anne Mulholland, said the ruling “ignored the reality that people use Google because they choose to, not because they are forced to,” in a blog post on Friday.

“The decision failed to account for the rapid pace of innovation and intense competition we face from established players and well-funded start-ups,” she wrote.

The antitrust trial began in September 2023, and in August 2024, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining a monopoly in search and related advertising.

Google had indicated at the time that it would likely appeal the decision.

Last spring, Google and the U.S. Department of Justice faced off in a remedies trial to determine the penalties the company would be required to adopt. The trial heard testimony from Apple and Mozilla, alongside competitors including OpenAI and other firms.

In September 2025, Mehta dismissed the most far-reaching remedies proposed by the Justice Department, notably a forced sale of Google’s Chrome browser.

The decision was widely seen as a victory for Google, with its shares rising 8 per cent after the ruling.

Judge Mehta finalised the remedies in December, ordering Google to share portions of its raw search interaction data used to train its ranking and AI systems, while stopping short of requiring the company to disclose its actual algorithms.

He also ruled that Google may not enter into search distribution agreements like its deal with Apple unless such agreements are structured to terminate within one year of being signed.

Google is seeking to delay the implementation of the remedies, Mulholland wrote on Friday.

“These mandates would risk Americans’ privacy and discourage competitors from building their own products,” Mulholland wrote. “Ultimately stifling the innovation that keeps the U.S. at the forefront of global technology.”