10 Nov 2021

The EU anti-trust case against Google-the latest chapter

Today, the European General Court upheld a 2017 anti-trust ruling by the European Commission which imposed on Google a fine of $2.8 billion following a finding of anti-competitive conduct by the internet giant

Why the decision against Google is important

Google has lost its appeal against a $2.8 billion fine, which was imposed on it by the EU after the European Commission concluded that it was operating in an anti competitive environment.

This decision against Google is important but no many people fully appreciate its significance.

Whilst Google still has one more opportunity to appeal, the significance of the upholding of the European Commission ruling goes far beyond the financial implication for Google. The $2.8 billion that Google has to pay in fines, might be pocket money for the internet giant but the case could open up other avenues of anti-competitive investigations, not only by the EU, but by also by the  US Federal Trad Commission and by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

The importance of the finding by the EU court against Google anti competitive practices cannot be overlooked. On this occasion, Google anti competitive practices had the potential of directly impacting many of the EU large medium and small businesses, as well as its  half a billion consumers.

Yair Cohen discusses the latest European Court decision about Google anti-trust practices

Why was Google fined by the European Commission

The latest ruling, relates to Google’s practices of manipulating price comparison searches.

In short, Google made sure that all new Android mobile phones, came with Google Chrome as a default browser.

It then made sure that all Google Chrome browsers came with “Google Search” as the default search engine.

Then Google made sure that when consumers search for a product or a service, for example, for a flight ticket, Google Shopping was the default first search result. Often, no other search results would have been shown from other price comparison websites.

This meant, that Google gave itself anti competitive advantage over other price comparison websites and by doing this, it was able to crash any possible competition and deprive consumers of real price comparison.

Without any competition left, Google was able, if it wanted to, to oppress business of all sizes by demanding higher and higher fees for allowing them to be included in search results on Google Shopping.

This could have meant, that a business who was unwilling or unable to pay Google a fee for the privilege of being included in Google Shopping search results, (a fee that is determined solely by Google), would have been risking going out of business altogether.

Those who would have agreed to pay, could eventually have found themselves so heavily squeezed, possibly to the point of financial oppression and bankruptcy.

They would have needed to give Google larger chunks of their already tiny profits margins and at the same time increase prices, just to stay in business.

Why did the European Commission decide to pursue Google anti-trust conduct

Had Google been allowed to continue with this anti competitive practice, Google could have become a de facto business partner of all the travel agencies, insurance companies, restaurants and hotels in the EU.

Luckily enough, Google got found out and was made to stop this particular anti-trust practice back in 2017. However, Google never accepted defeat and continued to appeal the European Commission’s ruling until today. Google is likely to go for one more line of appeal. After that, it will either be game over for Google anti competitive practices or a real tragedy for EU consumers and business owners.

All the EU anti-trust cases against Google explained

Upcoming Events

May 2020

The Internet Law Leadership Summit 2020

14 May 2020  -  15 May 2020

The annual gathering of the most prominent internet law lawyers and attorneys from across the world

From 09:00 until 17:00

At Aria Hotel, Las Vegas

Find out more...

April 2020

The Data Protection Practitioners' Conference 2020

06 Apr 2020

The annual ICO conference with Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham CBE

From 08:30 until 17:00

At Manchester Central Convention Complex

Find out more...

    Finally, it's coming. Soon, hopefully in the UK victims of #harassment and #defamation will be able to unmask their abusers without having to need me! Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online #trolls https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-introduce-new-laws-force-media-platforms-unmask-online-trolls-2021-11-28/

    ‘People are nasty as hell on there’: the battle to close Tattle – the most hate-filled corner of the web. I have been quoted in today's Guardian #harassment #onlineharms #celebrity https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/nov/24/people-nasty-as-hell-on-there-battle-close-tattle-most-hate-filled-corner-web

    There are a few challenges for #celebrities seeking right to be forgotten but this does not mean that a #celebrity cannot have information removed from social media or from Google searches #remove
    https://arighttobeforgotten.co.uk/right-to-be-forgotten-example/right-to-be-forgotten-by-celebrities

    Questions & Answers for common online harassment queries! Have a read to learn something new: https://harassmentlawyer.co.uk/online-harassment-questions-and-answers #harassment #lawyer #socialmedia #online #legal #advice #blackmail #CyberBullying #education

    Shannan Watts' brother raising funds to fight trolls blaming her for Chris Watts' crimes #ShannanWatts
    #FamilyAnnihilation
    #domesticviolence #onlineharassment #onlineharmbill #OnlineSafetyBill #DomesticAbuse https://tinyurl.com/3hvkr9e7

    Load More...