Key Takeaways
With Google embroiled in a slate of antitrust disputes, the firm has rarely ever been under so much pressure.
From Play Store to Search, courts and regulators have increasingly acted to open up Google’s platforms and prohibit practices deemed anti-competitive.
A year after a U.S. jury ruled that Google exercised monopoly control over Android app stores, Judge James Donato issued his final ruling in the case, ordering the firm to stop using policies that prevent developers from distributing apps and accepting payments outside of Google Play.
One of the biggest wins for app developers is the verdict that Google cannot prevent apps listed on the Play Store from using alternative payment systems.
Meanwhile, the judge also ruled that Google cannot enforce policies that unfairly restrict access to alternative stores like Epic’s. This includes using “scare screens” and security warnings to deter consumers from downloading apps from platforms other than Google’s Play Store.
However, after Google successfully stalled the judge’s injunction, it now plans to appeal the ruling.
Epic’s victory came just a month after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a coalition of states filed a lawsuit against Google, which could be one of its most significant antitrust challenges ever.
The complaint accused Google of “engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control” of the digital advertising technology market.
As the DOJ has alleged :
“Over the past 15 years, Google has engaged in a course of anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct that consisted of neutralizing or eliminating AdTech competitors through acquisitions; wielding its dominance across digital advertising markets to force more publishers and advertisers to use its products; and thwarting the ability to use competing products.”
The case reflects similar European antitrust complaints, where regulators have repeatedly reprimanded Google for abusing its market dominance.
No jurisdiction has been more forceful in penalizing Google than the European Union, where the firm has repeatedly been fined by the European Commission (EC) and national competition authorities for breaching EU antitrust laws.
The first notable action was the 2017 Google Shopping ruling, which marked the beginning of the European Commission’s antitrust crackdown
Then, in 2018, Google was fined €4.34 billion for abusing its position as a gatekeeper within the Android operating system to stifle competition.
Finally, in 2019, the company was slapped with another €1.49 billion penalty for anti-competitive practices in online advertising. However, that fine was overturned on Wednesday, Sept. 18, after Google successfully appealed it.
The preliminary findings of a second AdTech probe observed that “a behavioral remedy is likely to be ineffective to prevent the risk that Google continues such self-preferencing conducts or engages in new ones.” It therefore argued, “only the mandatory divestment by Google of part of its services would address its competition concerns.”
The commission’s findings, especially in the AdTech case, have paved the way for a wave of civil litigation across the bloc. For example, earlier this year, a coalition of European publishers filed a lawsuit seeking $2.3 billion in damages for revenue losses allegedly caused by Google’s AdTech dominance.
In the U.K., the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has also focused on Google’s dominance in digital advertising.
Like its EU peers, the CMA has found that Google’s role as both a publisher and ad server has given it an unfair advantage over rivals, allowing it to “self-preference” its own services.
On Friday, the CMA issued a statement of objections outlining its position that “Google disadvantages competitors and prevents them competing on a level playing field to provide publishers and advertisers with a better, more competitive service.”
For now, the authority hasn’t imposed any penalties. However, it suggested that a fine, as well as legally binding directions, could be on the way.
Google has also faced antitrust scrutiny outside the U.S. and Europe in major markets such as India and Australia.
In 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) fined Google $161.9 million for abusing its dominance in the Android ecosystem.
Meanwhile, as part of an ongoing investigation that resembles the U.S. Search case, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has ordered major mobile carriers to suspend agreements ensuring that Google is installed as the default smartphone search engine.
Year | Authority/Regulator | Issue | Outcome |
2020 | U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and 11 U.S. states | Alleged monopoly in online search and advertising; Google’s payments to be the default search engine on devices (e.g., Apple). | Ongoing: A ruling determined Google violated the Sherman Act, but remedies are yet to be decided. |
2024 | U.S. DOJ | Google’s dominance in AdTech, controlling both the buy-side and sell-side of the digital ad market. | Ongoing: DOJ seeks divestiture of Google’s AdTech business. |
2024 | U.S. Court | Epic Games dispute over alleged app store monopoly. | The jury ruled in favor of Epic and the Judge mandated changes to Play Store policies |
2017 | European Commission | Favoring its own comparison shopping service over competitors in search results. | Fined €2.42 billion. All appeals are now spent. |
2018 | European Commission | Abuse of dominance with Android by forcing manufacturers to pre-install Google apps, limiting competition. | Fined €4.34 billion. |
2019 | European Commission | Restrictive contracts for AdSense customers, preventing rivals from placing ads on third-party sites. | €1.49 billion penalty overturned. |
2021 | The Competition Commission of India (CCI) | Abuse of dominance with Android by promoting its own services in the Android ecosystem. | Fined $161.9 million. |
2021 | U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) | Google’s proposed changes to ad tracking technology through the Privacy Sandbox initiative. | Ongoing: Google agreed to concessions under CMA oversight. |
2013 | Federal Trade Commission (FTC) | Favoring its own services in search results (e.g., Google Shopping). | FTC closed the case with no action taken following a settlement. |
2023 | French Competition Authority | Antitrust issues in Google’s digital advertising practices. | Fined €220 million. |
2020 | Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) | Antitrust concerns in digital advertising and market dominance. | Ongoing: no fine has yet been imposed. |
2023 | South Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) | Abuse of dominance with Android by restricting custom versions of the operating system. | Fined 207.4 billion won. |
With Google’s search and AdTech business under the microscope, the next antitrust controversy is already brewing, and this one is related to the cloud.
In the U.K., the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched a probe into the country’s cloud market, which has warned about the concentration of power among the two largest providers, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services.
Latching onto the issue, Google has started a campaign to lobby European regulators to take a negative view of its largest cloud rivals.
In September, the firm filed a formal complaint with the European Commission concerning Microsoft’s “anti-competitive” cloud licensing practices.
Hitting back at this and other “shadowy” lobbying efforts, such as Google’s covert sponsorship of several campaign groups, Microsoft Deputy General Counsel Rima Alaily recently accused the firm of attempting to mislead regulators.
Contrary to Google’s claims, he argued that the three cloud hyperscalers operate on a level playing field. “Google is fully capable of competing head-to-head with AWS and Microsoft,” he said. “It does not need competition authorities to put a thumb on the scale in its favor.”