wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

No relief for Google in EU antitrust case that alleges preferential treatment in search results

The appeal was against a 2017 ruling that held Google guilty of anti-competitive practices in 13 EU countries.

Four years after it was levied and subsequently appealed, the European General Court on November 10 upheld the European Commission’s whopping $2.7 billion fine on Google, according to a press release.

Google was accused of favourably placing its own comparison shopping service over others, thereby reducing the traffic of competing services. The General Court rejected Google’s defense that this happened due to the presence of merchant platforms (online sales platforms like Amazon, eBay) or due to Google’s inability to ‘provide the equal treatment the commission wanted’ on technical and service quality grounds.

A Google spokesperson told the Wall Street Journal that it was too early to comment on whether the tech giant would appeal this decision before the European Court of Justice, the region’s top court; although, court documents say an appeal has to be filed within 2 months.

Since 2017, Google has reportedly made changes to its policies like allowing rival shopping-comparison sites to bid for ad slots atop Google search results that they can then resell, and changing the format for the ads to get those sites more traffic.

Important observations made by the court

On anti-competitiveness in comparison shopping market: The court observed that Google’s practice was harmful as it diverted a lot of traffic away from third-party services as users mostly look at only the first few results. It also said that given that the search engine reflects the most relevant search results at the top, that its own service showed up at the top hints at an anomaly. It upheld the earlier ruling’s fine saying that Google’s unfair practice was conducted intentionally.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

On anti-competitiveness in general search engine market: The General Court dismissed the claim saying that the previous ruling had not established even ‘potential’ anti-competition harms of Google’s conduct in the general search engines market.

Regulatory action against Google’s search engine service worldwide

Russia: In 2017, a Russian search engine reportedly sued and subsequently won an anti-trust lawsuit against Google.

India: In 2018, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) fined Google Rs 135.86 crore for “search bias” and abusing its dominant position in the market. The allegations largely revolved around the design of the Google search engine result page. It was also alleged that the company was leveraging its dominance in web search to strengthen its position in online syndicate search services, as competitors were denied access to the market.

Europe: In 2018, the European Commission had fined Google $5 billion for anti-competitive practices in its search engine service.

America: 38 US states reportedly sued Google, accusing it of trying to make its search engine as dominant inside cars, TVs, and speakers as it is in smartphones.

Australia: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found, as part of its ongoing investigation into monopolistic practices by Big Tech, that Google was abusing its dominant search engine position by making itself the default search engine on smartphones, laptops, and browsers.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Also read:

Have something to add? Post your comment and gift someone a MediaNama subscription.

Written By

I cover health technology for MediaNama but, really, love all things tech policy. Always willing to chat with a reader! Reach me at anushka@medianama.com

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Due to the scale of regulatory and technical challenges, transparency reporting under the IT Rules has gotten off to a rocky start.


Here are possible reasons why Indians are not generating significant IAP revenues despite our download share crossing 30%.


This article addresses the legal and practical ambiguities in understanding the complex crypto ecosystem in India.


It is widely argued that the PDP Bill report seeks to discard the intermediary status of social media platforms but that may not be...


Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ