Global technology giant Google has agreed to pay a $36 million (A$55 million) penalty after admitting to anti-competitive conduct involving exclusive agreements with major Australian telecommunications companies. The fine comes as part of a legal settlement following an investigation into Google’s conduct between 2019 and 2021, during which the company made arrangements with telcos that regulators say substantially lessened competition in the Australian search engine market.
The agreements in question involved Google paying Telstra and Optus—Australia’s largest telecom providers—a share of advertising revenue in exchange for exclusive pre-installation of Google Search on Android smartphones sold through their retail networks. These agreements also prevented the telcos from pre-installing or promoting rival search engines on these devices, effectively giving Google a dominant and largely unchallenged position on millions of smartphones sold to Australian consumers.
According to regulators, this conduct violated Australia’s competition laws, which prohibit arrangements that hinder market competition or restrict consumer choice. The agreements ensured that Google Search would not only be the default but also the only pre-installed search option on these devices, creating a significant barrier for rival search engine providers to compete on equal footing.
Google has admitted that these exclusive arrangements were likely to substantially reduce competition, and as part of the settlement, it has agreed to cease such practices in future agreements with telecom companies and mobile device manufacturers. Additionally, the company has committed to revising its contracts to ensure that device makers and telcos are not prevented from offering alternative search engines.
The $36 million fine is one of the largest ever imposed in Australia for anti-competitive conduct by a tech company. The settlement is still subject to final approval by the Federal Court, which will determine whether the proposed penalty is appropriate and enforceable under Australian law.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which led the investigation, emphasized the broader implications of the case for consumer rights and digital market fairness. The agency noted that exclusive pre-installation deals can significantly limit consumer choice by steering users toward a single provider’s services from the moment they begin using a device. While users can change default settings manually, most do not, meaning that default options tend to dominate usage.
Regulators also warned that such deals can entrench the market power of dominant firms, making it difficult for smaller or newer entrants to gain a foothold. This, in turn, can reduce innovation, limit competition-driven improvements in quality and price, and ultimately harm consumers.
The case is being seen as a significant win for Australian competition authorities, who have increasingly focused their attention on large digital platforms and their influence over critical technology markets. In recent years, Australia has led a number of high-profile regulatory efforts aimed at tech giants, including laws requiring platforms to pay local media outlets for news content and inquiries into the market power of digital advertising providers.
This latest case further highlights the global trend of governments and regulators moving to rein in the dominance of Big Tech companies. Similar investigations and legal actions are underway in the United States, European Union, India, and other jurisdictions, all targeting concerns about unfair competition, user data practices, and platform monopolies.
In response to the settlement, Google has stated that it remains committed to offering high-quality products while cooperating with regulators to resolve concerns. The company noted that it has already taken steps to ensure greater transparency in its partnerships and provide users with more control over their default search settings.
For the telecommunications companies involved, the agreements with Google offered substantial financial incentives. By pre-installing Google Search and keeping competitors off their devices, Telstra and Optus received a cut of the ad revenue generated by users’ search activity. However, both companies have since agreed not to renew such exclusive arrangements going forward and have cooperated with the investigation.
Consumer advocacy groups have welcomed the settlement, describing it as a necessary step toward restoring competition in the digital services market. They argue that mobile users should have the ability to choose their preferred services without being nudged—or outright forced—into using one provider’s tools simply because of pre-set defaults.
While the $36 million penalty represents a fraction of Google’s global revenue, it sends a clear signal that regulators in Australia are willing to hold tech giants accountable for anti-competitive behavior. Legal experts believe the case may also serve as a precedent for future enforcement actions in other jurisdictions, especially in relation to pre-installation deals and revenue-sharing agreements that influence user behavior.
.jpg)
Looking ahead, industry observers expect that more tech firms will re-evaluate their commercial partnerships to ensure they comply with competition laws and offer genuine choice to consumers. The settlement may also encourage telecom companies and device manufacturers to diversify their offerings and consider deals with alternative service providers, potentially reshaping the competitive landscape of the digital search market in Australia and beyond.
As the Federal Court prepares to review the proposed settlement, the case marks another step in the ongoing global effort to foster fairer, more open digital markets—where consumers, not contracts, determine which services succeed.
