Google has successfully challenged a €1.49 billion (£1.26 billion) fine imposed by the EU for allegedly blocking rival online search advertisers. The European Commission accused Google of abusing its market dominance by preventing third-party competitors from displaying search ads between 2006 and 2016.
However, Europe’s second-highest court ruled that the Commission “committed errors in its assessment,” leading to the annulment of the fine. The Commission stated it would “reflect on possible next steps,” which could include an appeal to the EU’s top court.
In response, Google expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating, “We are pleased that the court has recognized errors in the original decision and annulled the fine.” The company plans to review the full decision closely.
This ruling marks a rare victory for Google, which faced fines totaling €8.2 billion between 2017 and 2019 for antitrust violations. Notably, just last week, Google failed to overturn one of those fines.
The company is under scrutiny beyond Europe as well. Earlier this month, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) provisionally found that Google engaged in anti-competitive practices to dominate the ad tech market. Additionally, the US government is pursuing legal action against Google, alleging that its parent company, Alphabet, illegally maintains a monopoly in the market. Alphabet contends that its market position stems from the effectiveness of its products.
The case centered on Google’s AdSense product, which serves ads to websites, positioning Google as an ad broker. The European Commission concluded that Google had abused its market dominance by preventing websites from using other ad brokers when seeking ads for their pages.
The Commission stated that Google implemented additional “restrictive” clauses in its contracts to reinforce its dominance, resulting in a €1.49 billion fine.
However, the EU’s General Court upheld most of the Commission’s findings but annulled the fine, stating that the Commission failed to consider “all the relevant circumstances” regarding the contract clauses and its market definition. As a result, the court determined that the Commission did not demonstrate “an abuse of dominance.”
