What Does Margrethe Vestager’s EU Antitrust Victory Mean for Big Tech?
Margrethe Vestager calls a victory against Google a "big win" for tax justice. | Credit: Thierry Monasse / Getty Images.
Key Takeaways
- During her time as the EU’s competition tzar, Margrethe Vestager has explicitly targeted some of the world’s largest technology companies.
- In recent rulings, the EU Court of Justice upheld decisions affecting Google and Apple.
- As Vestager approaches the end of her term, she leaves behind a legacy of Big Tech monopoly-busting rulings.
As she approaches the end of her term as the EU’s Competition Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager is finishing on a high note, having secured two important legal victories that cement her legacy as a hawkish Big Tech critic.
In the first, the European Court of Justice threw out Google’s appeal against a €2.4 billion antitrust fine it was handed in 2017. In the second, the court ruled that tax breaks Apple received from the Irish government between 1991 and 2014 violated EU law.
Google’s EU Antitrust Disputes
During Vestager’s tenure as the EU’s top antitrust enforcer, no company has been rebuked more than Google.
Starting in 2017, the European Commission handed the Big Tech firm a trio of massive antitrust penalties totaling €8.25 billion.
The first of these, a €2.42 billion fine imposed in 2017, stemmed from charges that Google stifled competition in the price comparison market by favoring its own service Google Shopping in search results. Following the European Court of Justice’s decision to uphold the fine on Tuesday, Sept. 9, the Big Tech firm has now exhausted all avenues of appeal.
The second penalty followed the Commission’s 2018 finding that Google abused its dominant position in relation to the Android operating system to promote its own products and services unfairly. In 2022, an EU court largely upheld the Android decision. However, it did slightly reduce the value of the fine and annul parts of the ruling.
The third big EU antitrust case against Google accused the firm of stifling competition in the Advertising Technology market. The company’s initial appeal against the Commission’s €1.49 billion fine has yet to be decided.
Courts Side With European Commission
With a few minor exemptions, European courts have mostly upheld Commissioner Vestager’s antitrust actions.
Not only has Google failed to win any meaningful concessions in the last 7 years, but other firms in a similar position face the same uphill battle.
For the most part, the legal rationale behind Vestager’s Big Tech crackdown has proved impenetrable, and even member states have struggled to overturn the Commission’s rulings.
In another case that showcases the strength of the EC’s position, the Court of Justice rejected the Irish government’s appeal against a key tax ruling.
In that case, the Commission found that tax breaks offered by the Irish government to Apple violated EU law by giving the Big Tech firm an unfair advantage over local businesses.
A lower court initially overturned the decision in 2020, but the Court of Justice reinstated it in its latest ruling.
Vestager’s Antitrust Legacy
In many ways, Vestager has succeeded in her mission of reigning in Big Tech monopolies and increasing competition in EU digital markets. However, the work she started is ongoing, and it will be up to her successor to carry the torch.
Whoever replaces her as the EU’s next antitrust tzar will have much on their plate from day one.
However, with all provisions of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) now fully in force, the Commission is much better equipped to handle Big Tech antitrust cases than it was two years ago.
A looming battle over restrictive App Store policies could be a moment of reckoning for Apple equivalent to the 2018 Android ruling. Meanwhile, the preliminary findings of a second AdTech probe suggest the Commission could move beyond financial penalties and look to break up Google. Finally, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance are also being investigated for potentially uncompetitive practices in the AI market.
Apple Rejects Anti-Competition Allegations—Did They Intentionally Mislead Regulators?
