Canadian lawsuit against Apple covers search ads since 2005 amid Google dispute
Key Facts
The official British Columbia court page records a ruling in the case involving Apple and Google dated November 6, 2026, but does not state its terms, so it does not show whether the class action was certified. The case concerns Canada’s search advertising market, where the lawsuit page alleges that Google’s practices with Apple kept prices for those ads above competitive levels. The potential impact centers on advertisers who bought search ads from Google during the period covered by the lawsuit, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ description of the proposed class. But that description does not establish whether the lawsuit will be certified or whether its allegations are valid. The Canadian case also concerns allegations against Apple, while remaining separate from the U.S. antitrust case against Google.
CFM Lawyers describes the proposed class as all Canadian residents who purchased search ads from Google from 2005 to the present, excluding the defendants and their parent and subsidiary companies. The year 2005 marks the start of the period the plaintiffs want the class to cover; the page does not establish that it was the year Apple and Google began an agreement on the default search engine in Safari. The legal claim in the case summary concerns the allocation of the search advertising market, reduced competition and limits on supply in North America and worldwide. The page says the defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to achieve these aims, allegations not established by the ruling whose recording was available for review. The proposed period’s breadth means the claim could cover purchases made over many years if the class is certified as the plaintiffs described it.
The case intersects with broader scrutiny of Google’s distribution arrangements, but the U.S. ruling does not decide the Canadian lawsuit. On August 5, 2024, a federal judge ruled that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in general search services and text search advertising, according to a statement by California’s attorney general. That ruling was issued in the United States v. Google case, which examined the company’s conduct in the U.S. search market. About a year later, the U.S. Department of Justice announced remedies concerning the distribution of Google services and the sharing of search data. These developments provide regulatory context for the Canadian case, but do not establish the plaintiffs’ allegations there or determine its outcome.
On September 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice said a court order barred Google from entering into or maintaining exclusive contracts involving the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant and the Gemini app, and required it to make some search data available to competitors. The Associated Press reported that Google was not required to sell Chrome, but was required to share data with competitors. The department said the agreements targeted by the case made Google the default search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers. It also said the trial before the judge began in September 2023 and lasted nine weeks. These remedies remain part of the U.S. case; they do not resolve liability in the Canadian lawsuit or determine whether eligible purchasers will receive compensation.
In trading, Apple shares closed at $350.69 on November 9, 2026, while Alphabet Class A shares ended the session at $288.15, according to EL7 data. These prices represent the close of the session before the date the Canadian ruling was recorded, and on their own do not establish the market’s response to the ruling or its financial impact on the companies. The case remains relevant to investors because claims related to search arrangements could lead to legal or financial consequences if the lawsuit proceeds, but the available evidence does not specify compensation or the likelihood of an award. For now, the open court record does not state the terms of the November 6, 2026 ruling. The next procedural step and the outcome of the class certification request therefore remain unresolved in the available information.