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 €2.4 billion ($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 €2.4 billion ($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 €4.34 billion over Android and €1.49 billion ($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.
READ MORE:
The EU's Antitrust Czar Just Got More Powerful
EU Slaps Google With $1.7BN Antitrust Fine
Competition partners size up implications of Google's landmark European Commission fine
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
© 2025 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 AllJones Day, BCLP & Other Major Firms Boost European Teams with Key Partner Hires
4 minute read$13.8 Billion Magomedov Claim Thrown Out by UK High Court
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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