Technology & Science
ACCC and Google jointly seek A$55m penalty over Telstra/Optus Android search exclusivity
On 18 Aug 2025, Australia’s ACCC filed Federal Court proceedings that Google has already admitted, proposing a A$55m penalty and future contract changes after 2019–2021 deals with Telstra and Optus barred rival search apps on carrier-sold Android phones.
Focusing Facts
- The exclusivity ran from December 2019 to March 2021 and required pre-installation of only Google Search on certain Android handsets sold by Telstra and Optus.
- Telstra and Optus received a share of advertising revenue generated from Google Search on those devices.
- Google held 91.7% of Australian search in July 2025 (Statcounter), with Bing at 5.6% and Yahoo at 1.28%.
Context
This moment fits a long arc of antitrust battles over defaults and bundling: from United States v. Microsoft (1998–2001), where tying Internet Explorer to Windows helped foreclose rivals, to the EU’s 2018 Android decision fining Google €4.34B (largely upheld in 2022) for leveraging mobile distribution to entrench search dominance. Australia has been unusually assertive toward Big Tech since the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code, and this case mirrors the U.S. DOJ’s 2020 lawsuit alleging Google’s exclusionary default-search deals. The fine is modest for Google, but the undertakings and court scrutiny target the distribution choke points—preloads, defaults, and revenue-share exclusivity—that shape consumer behavior far more than head-to-head feature comparisons. As AI assistants and on-device models become the gateway to information, control over default pathways will only grow more consequential. On a 100‑year horizon, the significance is not the dollar figure but the gradual normalization of rules that limit gatekeeper leverage over discovery and distribution—periodic recalibrations in competition policy that define the architecture of digital markets for generations.
Perspectives
Australian consumer-focused outlets
e.g., 7NEWS.com.au, Sky News Australia, News.com.au — They present the ACCC action and $55m penalty as a win for consumer choice and competition, highlighting the regulator’s claim that the deals limited options and that AI-era search competition makes the change timely. They lean into the watchdog’s framing and deterrence messaging while giving relatively brief weight to Google’s cooperation and claim that such restrictive provisions had already been removed from its contracts.
International wire and business press
e.g., Reuters, RTE.ie, Australian Financial Review — They frame the case as a procedural enforcement step with Google admitting liability, jointly proposing a A$55m penalty, and the court still to approve it, situating it within a broader run of regulatory setbacks for Google in Australia. By emphasizing process, cooperation, and broader corporate context, they downplay detailed discussion of consumer harm and competitive effects emphasized by the ACCC.
Asia-Pacific regional outlets highlighting Singapore ties
e.g., South China Morning Post, CNA — They stress that Optus is owned by Singapore’s Singtel and that Google Asia-Pacific made the deals, foregrounding cross-border corporate links in the episode. The regional emphasis on Singapore connections can shift focus away from Australian policy debates and consumer impact toward the Asia-Pacific corporate angle.