ECJ Fines Google EUR 2.5 Bil

Oct 11, 2024 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

Google has been found to have abused its dominant position. Therefore, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has upheld the EUR 2.5 billion fine imposed on Google by the European Commission.

In 2017, a record fine of EUR 2.4 billion had been imposed on Google by the European Commission. By favouring its own comparison shopping service over those of competitors, Google had abused its dominant position in several national markets for online search services. The company had placed its own shopping comparison service at the top of its search results, plus an attractive image and text information, while competitors’ shopping comparison services were downgraded. As a result, users clicked on the Google price service results more often than those of the competition. However, in order to reach enough users, the other price comparison service providers had to rely on Google’s search engine traffic.

Google decided to appeal against the Commission’s decision and won. However, the Commission’s decision was upheld by the court, so Google appealed against this decision to the European Court of Justice.

The ECJ has now dismissed the appeal.

Google’s actions discriminate against competitors and do not comply with EU competition rules, according to the ECJ.

The ECJ also noted that EU law does not sanction the existence per se of dominant position, just the abusive exploitation thereof. In particular, dominant behaviour is prohibited if it restricts competition and is likely to harm individual companies and consumers.

It cannot generally be assumed that a dominant undertaking which treats its own goods or services more favourably than those of its competitors always engages in conduct which is not based on competition on the merits, irrespective of the circumstances of the case. In the present case, however, the General Court was right to find that, given the characteristics of the market and the specific circumstances of the case, Google’s conduct was discriminatory and does not comply with the concept of competition on the merits.

ECJ C-48/22 P (10 September 2024)