Google Heads to EU Court in Antitrust Fight
Over the next three days, lawyers for the company will argue against the European Commission's decision to fine the company for abusing its dominant position in the search engine sector.
February 11, 2020 at 04:39 PM
3 minute read
This week, Google is getting its day in the EU court.
Google's lawyers will spend the next three days in the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg trying to convince EU judges to overturn a $2.6 billion fine imposed by the European Commission.
Lawyers from Alphabet, Google's parent company, will present their arguments against the Commission's decision to fine the company for abusing its dominant position in the search engine sector.
In June 2017, Margrethe Vestager, the EU's antitrust chief, found that Google had abused its dominant position in the online search market by favoring results that linked to its Google Shopping site. She fined the company $2.6 billion
The five judges hearing the case this week will decide whether they agree with Vestager's analysis. Their ruling on whether to uphold the fine is seen as a crucial test of Vestager's approach to regulating big tech in markets where it dominates.
"The principles the Commission laid down in [the] shopping [case] are foundational for its work in relation to the tech sector," said Alec Burnside, an antitrust partner at Dechert in Brussels.
The fine on Google for anticompetitive behavior in the shopping sector was the first in a series of three areas where the Commission investigated the company and found abuses. The Commission has imposed nearly $9 billion in fines over the past few years.
The two others were into its Android operating system and online search results in the advertising sector. Vestager fined Google $4.73 billion over Android and $1.7 billion for ad search. The Commission has fined the company nearly $9 billion for various market abuses.
The hearing will last three days, during which time five judges will listen to arguments from a group of Google lawyers and a lawyer for the Commission.
"We're appealing the European Commission's 2017 Google Shopping decision because it is wrong on the law, the facts, and the economics," Google said in a statement. "Shopping ads have always helped people find the products they are looking for quickly and easily, and helped merchants to reach potential customers. We look forward to making our case in court and demonstrating that we have improved quality and increased choice for consumers."
Google's rivals had complained that the search engine was exploiting its market share by promoting search results that linked to its Google Shopping site.
Back in 2015, Vestager's predecessor, Joaquin Almunia, wanted to settle with the company by accepting an offer from Google to address the complaints by modifying its behavior.
Other members of the Commission, however, argued that Google's concessions were inadequate to change the offer to consumers and refused to endorse Almunia's recommendation.
Vestager then fined the company after an investigation into allegations of anti-competitive behavior in the market for online shopping, operating systems, and online advertising.
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 AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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