The European Commission has fined Google €890 million following two findings that the company violated the Digital Markets Act. The larger decision imposed a €460 million penalty for favoring Google’s own commercial services in search results, while a separate €430 million penalty addressed restrictions that prevented app developers from directing consumers toward alternative purchasing channels outside Google Play. Together, the rulings represent one of Europe’s most substantial enforcement actions since the Digital Markets Act became applicable to designated technology gatekeepers.
The size of the fine is striking, although the substance of the search decision carries broader significance. The Commission found that Google continued to give its own shopping, hotel, transport and sports services advantages in placement and presentation over competing services. Those findings reach the design of the search page itself, including the position of results, the visual treatment they receive and the filters made available to users. In the Commission’s view, Google used its control over the principal gateway to online information to confer advantages on commercial services that it also owned.
The ruling arrives during a period of sustained legal scrutiny of Google’s conduct in Europe and the United States. European authorities have pursued Google over self-preferencing in search for nearly a decade, while American courts have issued monopoly findings involving general search, search advertising and portions of the digital advertising technology infrastructure. Each proceeding arises under its own legal framework and evidentiary record, yet they share a recurring concern over the power Google derives from controlling the routes through which consumers and businesses reach one another online.
Two Findings Under the Digital Markets Act
The Digital Markets Act imposes a set of direct obligations on companies designated as gatekeepers because their platforms serve as important access points between businesses and consumers. Alphabet received that designation in 2023 for services that include Google Search and Google Play. The law requires gatekeepers to apply transparent, fair and nondiscriminatory conditions when ranking third-party services, and it prohibits them from giving their own products or services more favorable treatment. It also protects the ability of business users to communicate with customers and offer products through channels beyond the gatekeeper’s platform.
The Commission concluded that Google’s search results fell short of those requirements. Google’s shopping, hotel, transport and sports services appeared in more prominent positions and benefited from enhanced visuals and filters that comparable third-party services could not access. The finding concerns more than the order in which a list of links appeared. Presentation, imagery, functionality and placement can all shape which services consumers notice and ultimately choose, giving the operator of the search engine considerable influence over competition in the markets reached through that search page.
The Google Play decision addressed a different commercial relationship. The Commission found that Google prevented app developers from freely communicating alternative offers and directing users toward websites or competing app stores, where prices might be lower. The Digital Markets Act permits a fee connected to the initial acquisition of a customer through an app store, but the Commission found that Google’s fees and the periods during which they applied exceeded the limits of the law. Both decisions required Google to end the violations, with compliance due within 60 days and potential periodic penalties reaching as much as five percent of worldwide turnover.
Google has said that it is reviewing the rulings and evaluating an appeal. The company argues that the required changes will reduce useful search features involving prices and availability and weaken protections within Google Play. That response underscores the continuing dispute over how regulators should distinguish product integration from conduct that uses control over a platform to disadvantage rivals.
A New Chapter in Europe’s Google Search Cases
The search ruling continues a legal history that began well before the Digital Markets Act. In 2017, the European Commission fined Google approximately €2.4 billion after finding that it had abused its dominant position by favoring its own comparison-shopping service over competing services. Google pursued an appeal through the European courts, and the Court of Justice upheld the Commission’s decision in September 2024.
That earlier case proceeded under conventional European competition law and required an examination of Google’s dominant position, the character of its conduct and its potential effects on competition. The Digital Markets Act establishes ranking obligations directly for designated gatekeepers. The new decision therefore applies a more prescriptive legal framework to a familiar concern and extends the Commission’s findings across shopping, hotels, transport and sports services.
The distinction between public enforcement and private compensation also remains important. The €460 million search penalty is a regulatory fine in response to the Commission’s finding of noncompliance. Compensation for businesses that suffered economic harm would arise through separate private proceedings, where each claimant would have to establish its own injury and damages.
The recent PriceRunner judgment in Sweden illustrates that separate path. On July 1, 2026, the Swedish Patent and Market Court ordered Google to pay PriceRunner the equivalent of approximately 14.3 billion Swedish kronor ($1.5 billion), after concluding that Google’s preferential treatment of its own comparison-shopping service had caused PriceRunner compensable harm. The Swedish action relied in part on the earlier Google Shopping findings and converted the competitive injury identified by regulators into a private damages award.
The Parallel With the U.S. Google Antitrust Cases
The principal American search case examined a different set of practices. In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Google had unlawfully maintained monopolies in general search services and general search text advertising in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case centered heavily on distribution agreements that secured Google’s position as the default search engine across major devices, browsers and other search access points.
Following a separate remedies proceeding, the court restricted certain exclusive distribution arrangements and required Google to provide qualifying competitors with access to specified search data and search text advertising syndication services. Those remedies addressed the scale advantages that helped preserve Google’s position in search and search advertising. The European decision focuses on the treatment of Google’s own specialized services within search results, while the American case concerns the arrangements through which Google maintained access to users and protected the scale of its search business.
Google also lost a separate American antitrust case involving the open web advertising technology markets used by publishers to sell advertising inventory. In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Google had unlawfully monopolized the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets. That litigation concerned acquisitions, auction practices and the integration of technologies across the advertising supply chain, placing it in markets distinct from Google Search Ads and from the specialized search services addressed by the European Commission.
Viewed together, the European and American cases document judicial and regulatory findings across several parts of Google’s business. The conduct ranges from search distribution agreements and preferential placement to app store restrictions and advertising technology. The common feature lies in Google’s position as both the operator of essential digital infrastructure and a commercial participant in markets reached through that infrastructure.
The Relevance for Businesses That Purchased Google Advertising
For businesses following Google Ads antitrust claims, Google Ads overcharge claims and Google Ads arbitration, the European ruling adds to the official record concerning Google’s exercise of power within search and adjacent digital markets. The Commission has now found under the Digital Markets Act that Google gave its own commercial services superior visibility and functionality within general search results. The U.S. search case separately established unlawful monopolization in general search and general search text advertising.
The €890 million sanction shows that European regulators continue to examine the practical ways in which Google structures access to consumers and commercial opportunities. Its immediate consequences concern search presentation and the freedom of app developers to reach customers outside Google Play. Its wider importance comes from the expanding legal record surrounding a company whose platforms occupy a central position in search, advertising and digital commerce.
Disclaimer: DARC helps businesses evaluate and pursue Google Ads recovery claims. This article is attorney advertising and general information, and it is not legal advice. Eligibility and potential recovery depend on the specific facts of each business’s advertising history.