Competition Tribunal hears arguments on ‘public interest’ in online search monopoly case against Google, Apple

A proposed lawsuit between game developer Alexander Martin and Google over the company’s alleged monopoly in the online search market is still in its early stages, as Canada’s Competition Tribunal prepares to decide whether Martin’s application is in the public interest and can proceed. Both sides are making their arguments during a hearing at the tribunal this week, with appearances from legal representatives for Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Apple Inc., and Martin. Martin, an independent game developer known online as “droqen,” is seeking leave under newly added private access provisions of the Competition Act to bring an application against Google for the alleged abuse of its dominant position in the online search market, as well as Apple for alleged anti-competitive agreements with the search giant. Private access allows individuals to bring allegations of anti-competitive actions by companies to the Competition Tribunal, rather than that power resting only with the Competition Bureau. The regime has expanded in recent years through amendments to the Competition Act, with private parties now allowed to take action against alleged abuse of dominance or competitor collaboration. Martin is challenging Google and Apple on both of these grounds. He filed his application on June 20, the same day that new provisions in the law came into force allowing the tribunal to grant leave to applications “if it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.” This is the tribunal’s first opportunity to interpret the new “public interest” language. Martin’s claim argues that Google holds more than 91 per cent of the Canadian search engine market and alleges that it got and holds that position through anti-competitive practices and exclusive agreements. Drawing extensively from evidence presented during an antitrust trial in the United States last year — in which a federal judge found Google guilty, although Google is pursuing an appeal of that decision — Martin contends that a key part of Google’s strategy is an agreement it has with Apple that ensures Google remains the default search engine on Apple’s two billion active devices worldwide. Martin asserts that in 2022, Google paid Apple $20 billion to maintain their arrangement, effectively sidelining Apple as a potential competitor despite its size and technical expertise. This payout coincided with a Google study estimating a similar amount as the cost for Apple to develop its own search engine, he alleges. The game developer argues that this deal — along with Google’s arrangements with other equipment manufacturers such as Samsung Electronics Co. and Lenovo Group Ltd.'s Motorola, and web browsers such as Mozilla Firefox — creates “choice friction,” discouraging users from manually changing default settings and limiting visibility and user awareness of new search engines. Martin argues this stifles innovation. “In the course of my business, I rely on consumers utilizing online general search engines to find my products, which are principally sold online,” wrote Martin in his affidavit. “In particular, the prevalence and ranking of my products to consumers by general search engines is core to my business to maintain social visibility. The online search market therefore directly affects me and my business.” He states that he must “engage in optimizing language” in the content he posts in order to attract viewers from general search engines, which, “in the current market,” he argues means he “must engage specifically with the capriciousness of Google’s search algorithm, as it dominates the market.” “In an environment with true alternatives, I would be far less reliant on Google to direct potential consumers to my products,” asserts Martin. “I believe that in a more competitive environment, I and similarly situated producers of online content reliant on general search engines would be able to focus less on optimization of our messaging for only Google and could focus instead on our products themselves.” In his proposed notice of application, Martin’s lawyers also highlight his interest as a Canadian internet user in the search engine market providing “maximal benefit to himself as a consumer as relates to the openness and accessibility of the Internet, which is a matter of public interest.” If granted, Martin will make a formal application seeking an order prohibiting Google from further engaging in its alleged anti-competitive acts and requiring it to pay an amount “not exceeding the value of the benefit derived” to himself and any other person affected. Google, Apple claim evidence is ‘insufficient’ Google and Apple challenge Martin’s reliance on materials drawn from the U.S. antitrust proceedings, despite his assertion that the conduct also allegedly occurred in Canada, claiming they are irrelevant to Canada’s law and markets. “Simply accepting findings made by a judge in the U.S. concerning a different regulatory regime based on different evidence as an appropriate and sufficient basis to grant leave to proceed with an application before the tribunal of this nature and magnitude would be fraught with risk,” wrote Google in a submission. The company highlighted the difference between U.S. and Canadian antitrust law, arguing for instance that this country requires applicants to prove anti-competitive intent. Apple argues that Martin failed to show that the agreement it has with Google is anti-competitive, contending instead that it “was, and continues to be, to make it easy for users to access the best search engine — Google. This is a pro-competitive, not an anti-competitive, purpose.” Apple also challenges Martin’s assertion that the deal was to cut its ability to be a “potential competitor” in the search engine market, stating that it “never intended, and still does not intend, to launch its own search engine.” “The requirement for default placement, the requirement for exclusivity, is a requirement in Canada,” said Martin’s lawyers during the tribunal’s hearing on Wednesday, maintaining that the companies’ deal did not only exist in the U.S. “The conduct that was at issue is the same conduct in Canada. Therefore, the question is, what is the legal consequence of that conduct in Canada?” “The fact that it also occurred in the U.S. is of no moment,” they added. By adding private access measures to the Competition Act, Parliament “clearly intended to expand enforcement,” Martin’s representatives said, arguing that the legal test proposed by Google and Apple for determining whether the application is in the public interest would put “substantial barriers” against ordinary people’s ability to bring cases to the tribunal. The companies’ arguments against the use of U.S. evidence are “unfounded,” Martin’s submissions argue, because he is an “ordinary citizen proceeding in the public interest — not an industry insider,” and must “rely on information in the public domain” for his application. None of Martin’s allegations has been tested in court. phalentm@thewirereport.ca

Competition Tribunal hears arguments on ‘public interest’ in online search monopoly case against Google, Apple

Court |
By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald
|October 22, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Competition Tribunal hears arguments on ‘public interest’ in online search monopoly case against Google, Apple

Court | By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald |October 22, 2025

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

CBC sues information commissioner over order to disclose Gem subscriber numbers

Federal judge orders jail time for pair accused of running pirated streaming site

Telus wants Bell lawsuit over third-party internet access dismissed, launches counterclaim

Related Stories

Google refutes Competition Bureau’s claims in ad market suit

Rogers fights back in dispute with Competition Bureau over ‘Infinite’ data plans

OPINION: More competition does not require new competitors

Competition Bureau suing Google for alleged anti-competitive ad practices

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Court |
By Phalen Tynes-MacDonald
|October 22, 2025