The most lucrative partnership in Silicon Valley has survived its biggest legal test yet. A federal judge has cleared the way for Google to keep paying Apple roughly $20 billion a year to remain the default search engine in Safari—a decision that underscores just how deeply entrenched Google’s dominance in search has become.

Judge Amit Mehta’s remedies ruling in the landmark antitrust case against Google stops well short of what the Justice Department had hoped for. Calls to break up Chrome or Android were dismissed, as were proposals to force Google to display choice screens that would prompt users to pick a rival search engine. Instead, the court preserved Google’s ability to strike deals like the Apple arrangement, arguing that stripping those payments away would harm not only Google but also its partners.

For Apple, the decision safeguards a steady stream of revenue that rivals the profits of its hardware divisions. For Google, it cements the status of default search placements as a cornerstone of its empire.

The Google and Apple search deal ruling isn’t without caveats. Google has been ordered to share portions of its search data with competitors, a move designed to level the playing field for smaller players and AI-driven newcomers. Exclusive contracts are also off the table, meaning distribution partners could technically entertain rival bids.

But the bigger picture is clear: the court has chosen continuity over disruption. Default search deals remain intact, and Google’s grip on distribution is largely untouched.

Judge Mehta’s reasoning points to a reluctance to tamper with a market already in flux. The rise of generative AI search tools—some backed by Microsoft, others springing from independent labs—has created new pressure on Google without court intervention. Forcing drastic changes now, he suggested, could risk damaging products like Mozilla’s Firefox, which depends heavily on Google’s payments to stay afloat.

That perspective will not sit well with Google’s critics. DuckDuckGo, privacy advocates, and lawmakers who had hoped for structural remedies see the decision as a missed opportunity to curtail Google’s influence in how billions of people access information online.

Investors were quick to reward the outcome. Alphabet’s stock rose sharply after the ruling, while Apple also saw gains. Both companies avoided the kind of structural remedies that could have rattled their business models.

Consumer advocates, meanwhile, argue that the decision leaves the search market tilted in Google’s favor. Without stronger measures—like divestitures or mandated choice screens—they believe competitors will continue to face an uphill battle.

The Justice Department is expected to weigh an appeal, and Google has signaled it will push back against data-sharing requirements. Meanwhile, rivals will scrutinize whether access to Google’s search data provides any meaningful competitive edge.

For now, though, the Google and Apple search deal ruling affirms the staying power of the default setting. The fight over the future of search is far from finished, but the balance of power—at least for the moment—remains exactly where it was.