Default PlacementThin moat

Alphabet (Google) (GOOGL) — moat facet

Most people never change the setting they're given; Google pays billions a year to be that setting.

Reinforcing Android is a web of default-placement agreements — arrangements that make Google the pre-set search engine on browsers and devices Google does not itself control, keeping it one tap away wherever people go. These deals are immensely valuable precisely because defaults are so powerful; the overwhelming majority of people never change the setting they are given, so being the default is very nearly the same as being the only choice.

What the default costs, and what it protects ($B)$224.5BSearch revenue, 2025$59.9BAll TAC paid, 2025~$20BPaid to Apple, 2022TAC: traffic acquisition costs (10-K FY2025). Apple figure: U.S. v. Google trial record
Traffic acquisition costs run at about a fifth of ad revenue, and the largest single cheque, about $20 billion, buys the default on the iPhone.

The power of a default is one of the most reliable facts in all of technology: inertia governs behavior, and whatever a device does out of the box is what nearly everyone continues to do. By paying to be the default search engine — most famously on the world's most valuable smartphones1 — Google guarantees that the front door to search opens onto its own box for billions of people who will never think to change it.

The economics are extraordinary: Google pays enormous sums for these placements, and they are worth every penny, because the traffic they guarantee feeds the flywheel and the auction that fund everything else. It is cheaper and surer to buy the default than to win each user's choice, and Google has spent lavishly to make certain that no matter whose device or browser a person uses, Google search is what greets them.

For the owner, default placement rates as thin — the most exposed thread in the whole franchise — precisely because it is at once enormously valuable and easy to portray to a court as an unlawful purchase of monopoly. Courts have already found these deals illegal; the remedy that followed stopped short of banning the payments but prohibited exclusive distribution deals2, which leaves the partners Google pays free to feature rival search and AI products beside it — and that is why this wall, sturdy as its results have been, is the one an owner should watch most warily.

Moat trajectory: Narrowing

Narrowing — the piece most exposed to regulators. Being the default search engine on browsers and phones (including the multibillion-dollar deal to be default in Apple's Safari) funnels an enormous share of queries to Google automatically. But a US court has now ruled Google an illegal monopolist in search and has now banned exactly these exclusive default arrangements, while leaving the payments lawful. With defaults no longer exclusive, some traffic that arrived on autopilot is up for grabs. The direction of this facet is set against Google.

The number that tests this moat
Moat Explorer calc
Traffic acquisition costs as a share of ad revenue
20.3% in 2025 ($59.9B of $294.7B)

The default has a price, paid to Apple, Android partners and network publishers. A rising share would mean Google is paying more to keep the same place; a falling one, that the default holds more cheaply now exclusivity is banned.

How it's calculated: Traffic acquisition costs ($59.9B) divided by Google advertising revenue ($294.7B), FY2025.
Source: Alphabet Form 10-K, FY2025 ↗
⚠ Threats to the moat
References
  1. ReportedThe default payments — most famously for placement on the iPhone — run ≈$20B/yr per trial records.
    United States v. Google LLC (D.D.C., Judge Mehta) — DOJ case page: Aug 2024 liability ruling (default-search payments, about $20B a year largely to Apple, found to be unlawful monopoly maintenance); final judgment and memorandum opinion Dec 5, 2025; the United States' response and opening brief on cross-appeal, July 28, 2026 — Liability ruling Aug 2024; remedies 2024–2026 · publ. 2024–2026 · source ↗
  2. ReportedThe remedy did not ban payments for default placement but prohibited exclusive search distribution deals.
    Hughes Hubbard, 'Court Issues Remedies Ruling in United States v. Google Search Case' (Sept 3, 2025) — Judge Mehta's 230-page remedies ruling: no forced divestiture of Chrome or Android ('the complete divestiture of Chrome is a poor fit for this case'); payments for default placement not banned but exclusive search distribution deals prohibited; search index and user-interaction data (not ads data) to be shared with qualified competitors at marginal cost — Remedies ruling of September 2, 2025 · publ. September 3, 2025 · source ↗
Sources
Generated September 16, 2026