Google has successfully overturned a €1.49 billion (£1.26 billion) fine imposed by the EU for obstructing rival online search advertisers.
The fine, issued by the European Commission, accused Google of exploiting its market dominance by preventing third-party competitors from displaying search ads from 2006 to 2016. However, the EU’s second-highest court ruled that the Commission had made “errors in its assessment.”
In response, the Commission announced that it would “consider possible next steps,” including a potential appeal to the EU’s highest court.
Google welcomed the decision, stating, “We are pleased that the court has recognised errors in the original decision and annulled the fine.” The company added that it would “review the full decision closely.”
This victory is a rare win for Google, which has faced fines totaling €8.2 billion between 2017 and 2019 for antitrust violations. Just last week, the company failed in its attempt to overturn another fine.
Meanwhile, Google continues to face scrutiny beyond Europe. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently found that Google had engaged in anti-competitive practices to preserve its market dominance. In the US, the government is pursuing legal action against Google’s parent company, Alphabet, for allegedly monopolizing the market.
Alphabet maintains that its market position results from the superior performance of its products.
Restrictive Clauses
The case involved Google’s AdSense product, which places ads on websites, making Google an intermediary for online advertisements. The European Commission argued that Google had abused its dominant position by restricting websites from using ad brokers other than AdSense.
Additionally, the Commission accused Google of imposing “restrictive” clauses in its contracts to maintain its market control, leading to the €1.49 billion fine.
Although the EU’s General Court upheld many of the Commission’s findings, it annulled the fine, stating that the Commission failed to consider “all the relevant circumstances” related to the contract clauses and market definition. Consequently, the court ruled that the Commission had not sufficiently proven “an abuse of dominant position.”