EU Hits Google With a $1.7 Billion Antitrust Fine
This marks the third billion-dollar penalty European regulators have imposed on the tech giant for hindering competition.
March 20, 2019 at 02:49 PM
5 minute read
The European Commission has fined Google €1.49 billion ($1.7 billion) for abusing its dominant position in the market for online advertising—the third billion-dollar penalty it has imposed on the tech giant for hindering competition.
Announcing the fine, Margrethe Vestager, the EU's antitrust czar, said that Google had violated antitrust rules by shutting its competitors out of the market for online search advertising by imposing restrictions on companies that used its search bar on their websites in Europe. Google had unfairly required websites that used its search bar to feature ads from Google's advertising services over those of rivals.
“The €1.49 billion reflects the serious and sustained nature of Google's infringement,” Vestager said. “The misconduct lasted over 10 years and denied other companies the possibility to compete on the merits and to innovate.”
Google stopped the practice after the regulator sent it a statement of objections in July 2016.
After the fine was announced Wednesday, Google said in a tweet that “healthy, thriving markets are in everyone's interest.”
Regulators in the EU have been much more aggressive in their approach to large technology companies than their U.S. counterparts when it comes to anti-competitive practices, data protection and tax issues. They are now seen by many governments as a global model as more try to rein in the power of the tech giants of Silicon Valley.
The fine in this case came as a result of an investigation into the market for brokering online search advertising. Through its Adsense business, Google serves as a broker between advertisers and website owners that want to profit from the space around search engine results. But according to the commission, Google blocked its rivals from placing advertisements on third-party websites by imposing exclusivity clauses in AdSense contracts.
The commission found that Google was the biggest player in online search advertising intermediation in the European Economic Area (EEA)—the 28 countries of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein—with a market share above 70 percent from 2006 to 2016.
In 2016 Google also had a market share of above 90 percent in the national markets for general search, and above 75 percent in most of the national markets for online search advertising.
“Google is by far the biggest advertising broker,” Vestager said. “Google's rivals were unable to grow and compete. Websites and owners of websites had limited options for selling space on their websites other than Google.”
The commission found that Google was able to shut out competitors such as Microsoft and Yahoo. It investigated about 200 agreements between Google and the most commercially important website publishers. It found that the agreements contained clauses that restricted publishers from using search advertisements from Google's competitors in their search results.
In 2009, Google replaced these exclusivity clauses with “premium placement” clauses that required publishers to reserve the most prominent space in their websites for Google's search advertisements in their search results. Google also required publishers to seek written permission to make changes in the way competitors' advertisements were displayed, the commission said. This effectively gave Google control over its rivals' ads.
“There was no reason for Google to include these clauses in their contracts except to exclude rivals, Vestager said.
Vestager ordered Google to end all such restrictive clauses and commit to not introducing clauses with similar effect in the future.
The European Commission has now fined Google a total of €8.25 billion ($9.4 billion) for anti-competitive practices. The commission can fine a company it finds guilty of illegal conduct up to 10 percent of its global turnover.
Vestager said measures that the commission had taken against Google for antitrust abuses had yielded positive results. Referring to a ruling against Google in June 2017 that the search company had favoured its own results in online shopping searches, Vestager said that Google's rivals now had 70 percent of the market compared to 30 percent two years ago.
She also highlighted a ruling from July 2018 that Google had abused its market position to require mobile phone makers to install Android and Google apps on their handsets. Vestager said that mobile phone makers were now able to strike contracts with other developers to install their apps.
“We've always agreed that healthy, thriving markets are in everyone's interest,” Google tweeted after the announcement. “We're pleased that @EU_Commission recognizes our efforts to comply with its rulings, and the changes we're making in coming months to give more visibility to rivals in Europe.”
Google also said it would now allow users in Europe to switch to another web browser and search engine on Android. It also said that in order to allow for more competition when customers shop with Google, it would give other shopping sites more prominence in its search results.
|Related Stories:
7 Times Europe Has Made US Tech Companies Pay Up Over Legal Issues
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Many Legal Jobs Will Be Affected by AI? Law Firms Can't Agree
DLA Piper Names Corporate Lawyer Gerry Williams as Co-US Managing Partner
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Nicholas M. DePalma and Christian R. Schreiber of Venable have stepped in to represent CP Management Services, CRS RB4 Holdings and other defendants in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 30 in Virginia Eastern District Court by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Daito Kentaku USA. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Claude M. Hilton, is 1:24-cv-01538, Daito Kentaku USA, LLC v. Comstock Partners, LC.
Who Got The Work
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs partner Andrew J. Pulliam has entered an appearance for Steve Jensen in a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The action, filed Aug. 30 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the Law Office of Perry A. Craft on behalf of Timothy Robins, accuses the defendant of writing a worthless check for over $94,000 for the sale of auctioned goods. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eli J. Richardson, is 3:24-cv-01064, Robins v. Jensen et al.
Who Got The Work
Lane Powell shareholder Pilar C. French has entered an appearance for Penney OpCo LLC in a pending consumer class action. The complaint, filed Aug. 26 in Oregon District Court by Hattis & Lukacs, alleges that the company markets fictional discounts for certain products. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, is 6:24-cv-01414, Gamble v. Penney OpCo LLC.
Who Got The Work
Donald L. Carmelite and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey have stepped in to defend the City of York, Detective Roland Comacho and Detective Lisa Daniels in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Middle District Court by Levin & Zeiger on behalf of Noel Matos Montalvo, seeks damages for the amount of time that Montalvo was incarcerated over five years for the exonerated killing of his common law wife. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson, is 1:24-cv-01459, Montalvo v. City of York, et al.
Who Got The Work
Joseph M. Englert, Brian E. Pumphrey and M. Laughlin Allen of McGuireWoods have entered appearances for Bank of America NA in a pending class action. The action was filed Aug. 26 in Georgia Northern District Court by Podhurst Orseck; Webb, Klase & Lemond; Crabtree & Auslander; and Morrison + Associates on behalf of the representative of the beneficiaries of the Arthur N. Weinraub Trust, a trust which contains residential real property. The suit accuses the defendant of overcharging the trust by selecting unnecessary and/or excessively priced insurance for the property. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr., is 1:24-cv-03780, Weinraub v. Bank of America, N.A.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250