{"id":61384,"date":"2024-10-04T13:38:47","date_gmt":"2024-10-04T11:38:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/google-protiv-evropske-komisije-tehnoloski-div-barem-trenutno-uzvraca-udarac\/"},"modified":"2025-09-04T10:02:07","modified_gmt":"2025-09-04T08:02:07","slug":"google-vs-european-commission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/google-vs-european-commission\/","title":{"rendered":"Google vs. the European Commission: The Tech Giant Strikes Back (for Now)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

In the past decade, the European Union (\u201cEU<\/strong>\u201d) has intensified its efforts to strengthen control over tech giants such as Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon. Their enormous market power not only affects market competition but also directly shapes numerous user rights, especially regarding data privacy protection and the promotion of innovation. Over the years, cases have emerged where economic giants like H&M<\/a> and Google<\/a> violated regulations, particularly regarding the unlawful collection of personal data, leading to significant fines. These examples clearly show that stricter regulations have become necessary to ensure transparency, protect competition, and safeguard user rights in the digital age.<\/p>

The European Commission<\/a>\u2019s decision in 2019 to fine Google \u20ac1.49 billion for violating the EU\u2019s competition rules, specifically for abusing its dominant position in the online advertising intermediation market, marked a turning point in the fight for fairer digital markets.<\/p>

This fine is far from an isolated case – it represents part of a long-standing and broad campaign led by the current EU Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age and former Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, and the regulatory bodies of the EU to finally put an end to the abuse of dominant market positions by certain tech giants and to promote fair market conditions. Several proceedings have been and are being conducted against Google before the European Commission for various practices considered to be abuses of dominant positions, and other giants like Apple, Microsoft, and Meta are also frequently under the scrutiny of the European Commission.<\/p>

In these proceedings, the European Commission has not always achieved the results it expected. On 18 September 2024, Google scored a small victory – the General Court of the European Union (\u201cGCEU<\/strong>\u201d) upheld its appeal and annulled the European Commission\u2019s decision fining Google \u20ac1.49 billion for abusing its dominant position in the online advertising intermediation market. This decision is not final, as the European Commission announced that it is considering an appeal to the European Court of Justice (\u201cECJ<\/strong>,\u201d the highest judicial instance in the EU), while Google, predictably, welcomed the decision. However, just eight days before this ruling, Google definitively lost a case against the European Commission and will have to pay \u20ac2.4 billion due to proven abuse of its dominant position, but this time due to practices in the search engine market where it used algorithmic solutions to prefer its own shopping comparison service (Google Shopping) over those of competitors. Certainly, the saga between the European Commission and the tech giants will continue in the coming period.<\/p>

Below, we will explore in more detail what Google initially did to receive the billion-euro fine from regulators, why the GCEU sided with Google, and what the broader implications of this decision are for the digital market, as well as the consequences of Google\u2019s, at least temporary, victory in this proceeding.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Advertising Intermediaries: The Secret Engine Behind the Success of the Digital Economy<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>

To fully understand why Google\u2019s practices were problematic for the European Commission, first, it is essential to understand the role of intermediaries in digital advertising. Online advertising has become a crucial and indispensable part of the modern global economy, enabling companies to efficiently and quickly reach their target consumers. In this complex ecosystem, an intermediary like Google plays a central role, connecting website owners with advertisers.<\/p>

Various websites, such as news portals or travel agency sites, often feature a search option. When users use this function, the website displays search results along with ads that appear alongside them. Through its platform Google AdSense, Google allows website owners to display these ads, thereby earning revenue by showing ads on their websites. On the other side, advertisers pay for this space to promote their products and services.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

AdSense: A Machine for Dominance or a Tool for Website Owners?<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/p>

Google AdSense is one of the most well-known and widely used tools for monetizing online content, especially among small and medium-sized website owners. This platform enables website owners to automatically display ads selected by Google based on the page\u2019s content and user behavior, and website owners earn money when visitors click on these ads.<\/p>

From 2006 to 2016, Google was the dominant player in the search advertising intermediary market in the European Economic Area. This means that most of the ads you would see when searching the internet or visiting a site displaying ads came through Google\u2019s platform. Specifically, Google held more than 70% of the market in this area. Regarding how much people used Google for internet searches, over 90% of all searches in the EU were conducted through Google, while other search engines, such as Bing or Yahoo, had a small share.<\/p>

This dominance allowed Google to set rules that often worked in its favor. According to the European Commission, Google used its market power to impose conditions on website owners that essentially forced them into exclusive partnerships with Google, a practice that is problematic from a competition law perspective when you are a dominant market participant. This restricted website owners\u2019 ability to choose between different advertising platforms, pushing competitors like Microsoft and Yahoo into the background.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/h2>

Google\u2019s Strategy of Dominance in Advertising: How Monopoly Controls Clicks<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>

After years of investigation, the European Commission identified three key problematic practices that Google engaged in within search advertising. While holding a dominant position is not illegal in itself, the American tech giant abused its power to eliminate competition. The investigation revealed that through contracts with key website owners, Google imposed strict conditions that limited their freedom in several ways. These conditions effectively prevented website owners from choosing other advertising platforms, thereby directly strengthening Google\u2019s market control.<\/p>

The following table shows the key provisions found by the European Commission in hundreds of contracts between Google and its partners, which represent an abuse of market power by Google:<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

YEAR<\/strong><\/p>

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

PRACTICE<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

DESCRIPTION<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

MARKET EFFECTS<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>

2006 to 2009<\/p><\/td>

Exclusivity Provisions<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

Website owners were prohibited from placing or displaying search ads from competing companies.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

For example: If you are a website owner using Google\u2019s ad system, you cannot place ads from other companies like Microsoft or Yahoo.<\/em><\/p>

\u00a0<\/p><\/td>

Reduced choice of advertising platforms for website owners, making it harder for them to accept competitive offers.<\/p><\/td><\/tr>

From 2009<\/p><\/td>

\u201cPremium Positioning\u201d Provisions<\/strong><\/p>

\u00a0<\/p><\/td>

Website owners were required to reserve the most prominent and profitable spots on their sites for Google ads.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Additionally, website owners had to place a minimum number of Google ads on their websites.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

(For example: If your website \u201cTravel Around the World\u201d has 10 ads, 7 Google ads must be placed at the top of the page or next to search results, while the remaining 3 Microsoft ads could be at the bottom of the page or in less clicked areas.)<\/em><\/p>

\u00a0<\/p><\/td>

The best and most profitable spaces were reserved for Google, while competing ads were placed in less attractive spots, reducing their visibility and effectiveness.<\/p><\/td><\/tr>

From 2009<\/p><\/td>

Prior Approval Provisions<\/strong><\/p><\/td>

Website owners had to obtain written approval from Google before changing how they displayed competitors\u2019 ads.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

(For example: Google could require that Microsoft ads appear smaller, in an unreadable font, or without vibrant colors.)<\/em><\/p>

\u00a0<\/p><\/td>

Google controlled the appearance of competitors\u2019 ads, directly affecting their attractiveness, visibility, and positioning, thus reducing the number of clicks on them.<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>

\u00a0<\/p>

As we can see from the table, Google\u2019s initially open and, later on, covert practices significantly weakened and suppressed competition. Competitors were either completely excluded or their ads were displayed in less visible spots, while Google controlled the appearance of these ads. The European Commission concluded that these practices severely distorted market competition, preventing rivals like Microsoft or Yahoo from developing, while website owners were practically forced to rely exclusively on Google\u2019s services.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Google and Multibillion-Euro Fines: A Symbolic Blow or the Beginning of Change?<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/p>

The \u20ac1.49 billion fine imposed on Google is one of the largest fines in the history of the European Commission. The highest fine, also imposed on Google, amounts to \u20ac4.12 billion, although it is not final as Google lost the appeal in the first-instance EU court. Despite sounding impressive, the fine represents only 1.29% of Google\u2019s revenue in 2018. This disparity raises questions about the actual impact of the fine on the tech giant\u2019s operations. Will such sanctions seriously undermine Google\u2019s market position and revenue, or will the company simply absorb them and continue its practices?<\/p>

Nevertheless, this case marks a turning point for digital markets. Google was forced to reconsider its business models, and in the end, regardless of the final outcome of the proceedings, it abandoned the disputed practices. This allowed competitors to enter the search advertising market. Thus, the EU, if not (yet) legally, at least factually, removed the barriers that limited competitors, giving website owners greater freedom in choosing advertising platforms and earning through ads.<\/p>

In a world where a few tech giants dominate, such regulatory interventions are crucial for maintaining a balance between innovation, competition, and consumer protection. This case is an important reminder that the fight for a fair market will remain a priority for regulators, and tech leaders will have to find ways to adapt their business models to the new rules of the game.<\/p>

This fine is part of a broader trend \u2013 between 2017 and 2019, the European Commission imposed a total of \u20ac8 billion in fines on Google for various violations of antitrust competition rules. Although these fines seem high, Google\u2019s financial strength allows it to absorb them relatively easily, but the long-term consequences for the market and competition remain to be seen.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>

Google\u2019s Appeal: Victory for the Tech Giant, but not the End of the Battle<\/h2>

\u00a0<\/p>

On 18 September 2024, the GCEU ruled in favor of the American tech giant, annulling the \u20ac1.49 billion fine previously imposed by the European Commission. While the court upheld most of the European Commission\u2019s findings, the ruling indicated that the European Commission did not provide sufficient evidence that Google\u2019s contracts directly stifled innovation, harmed consumers, or that Google solidified its dominant position through them.<\/p>

Although significant for Google, this ruling does not mark the end of the legal battle, as there is a possibility of an appeal to the highest judicial authority in the EU \u2013 the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, Google\u2019s victory highlights the challenges regulators face in proving antitrust violations in increasingly complex digital markets, given the exceptionally high standards of proof required.<\/p>

The\u00a0decision<\/a>\u00a0serves as a reminder that regulatory bodies, in their efforts to strengthen control over tech giants, must provide clear and robust evidence to support their claims. Google\u2019s victory could set a precedent for future regulations of large tech companies, indicating that hefty fines might not always stand if not backed by strong enough evidence.<\/p>

As tensions between regulators and tech giants continue to escalate, the annulment of this multi-billion fine represents a significant win for Google amid the increasing regulatory pressures it faces on both sides of the Atlantic. Given the numerous ongoing investigations by both the European Commission and U.S. regulators, as well as potential future high fines, this ruling currently provides relief for Google. It remains to be seen what impact this outcome will have on the complex relationships between tech giants and regulators.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the past decade, the European Union (\u201cEU\u201d) has intensified its efforts to strengthen control over tech giants such as Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon. Their enormous market power not only affects market competition but also directly shapes numerous user rights, especially regarding data privacy protection and the promotion of innovation. Over the years, cases […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":66000,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[204,126,84],"class_list":["post-61384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-competition-law","category-privacy-data-protection-en","category-privatnost-i-zastita-podataka"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61384"}],"version-history":[{"count":28,"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61384\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71012,"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61384\/revisions\/71012"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/66000"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zuniclaw.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}