Google’s advertising business has faced renewed scrutiny in the EU, with a recent proposal to sell its advertising marketplace, AdX, being rejected by European publishers. The tech giant offered the sale to resolve an antitrust investigation by the EU, which accuses Google of favouring its services. The investigation followed complaints from the European Publishers Council, and the European Commission has since charged Google with anti-competitive practices.
Publishers dismissed Google’s offer as insufficient, arguing that the sale of AdX alone would not address the broader conflicts of interest due to Google’s dominance across the entire adtech supply chain. These industry insiders suggest that more drastic measures may be needed to curb Google’s influence, but the EU has not yet demanded such extensive divestments.
Google, meanwhile, maintains that the Commission’s claims are based on a misinterpretation of the competitive nature of the advertising sector. Despite facing similar antitrust trials in the US over its advertising technology, the company continues to defend its business practices, where authorities have called for selling its Ad Manager product.
AdX, which allows publishers to auction unsold ad space to advertisers in real time, has become a key component in the ongoing investigation. The EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager previously suggested Google divest additional tools to resolve the issue. However, experts believe the Commission may first issue a simpler ruling to halt Google’s current practices before escalating to demands for asset sales.
With advertising contributing to 77% of Google’s $237.85 billion revenue in 2023, the company’s dominant position in digital advertising remains a central point of contention in the EU and globally.
Google is facing a billionaire lawsuit in London as Alphabet, its parent company, asked a tribunal to dismiss claims accusing the tech giant of abusing its dominance in the online search market. The lawsuit, which could amount to £7 billion ($9.3 billion), focuses on businesses’ costs when using Google’s search advertising services, which plaintiffs argue are ultimately passed on to consumers. The legal challenge is one of several targeting Google’s practices in recent years, including a similar case in Britain concerning its advertising market dominance and an ongoing antitrust trial in the United States.
Consumer rights advocate Nikki Stopford, representing the class of claimants, argues that Google’s overwhelming market presence allows it to increase costs unfairly. Her lawsuit also points to a €4.5 billion fine imposed by the European Commission in 2018 over Google’s restrictions on Android manufacturers, a decision currently being appealed. Furthermore, the lawsuit accuses Google of striking a deal with Apple to make its search engine the default on Apple’s Safari browser in exchange for a portion of mobile search ad revenues.
Google has dismissed these claims as unfounded. Its lawyer, Meredith Pickford, stated that the case is flawed, rejecting the notion that Google’s practices harmed consumers. Pickford also emphasised that Google’s agreement with Apple was legally sound and argued that the European Commission’s ruling was based on technicalities rather than substantive issues. The tribunal’s decision on whether the case will proceed to trial remains pending.
Qualcomm faced another legal setback in the EU as the continent’s second-highest court largely upheld an EU antitrust fine, reducing it slightly to €238.7 million ($265.5 million) from the original €242 million. The fine, imposed by the European Commission in 2019, stemmed from Qualcomm’s practice of selling chipsets below cost between 2009 and 2011—a tactic known as predatory pricing—aimed at driving British competitor Icera, now part of Nvidia, out of the market.
Qualcomm argued that the chipsets in question only accounted for a small fraction (0.7%) of the market, making it unlikely they could have effectively blocked competitors. However, the General Court in Luxembourg dismissed most of the company’s claims, apart from a minor point regarding the fine’s calculation, which led to a slight reduction.
The ruling marks another chapter in Qualcomm’s legal battles with the EU. While the company can appeal on legal grounds to the EU Court of Justice, it has already experienced mixed results in the European courts. In 2021, Qualcomm overturned a separate €997 million fine, which had been levied for paying Apple billions to exclusively use its chips in iPhones and iPads from 2011 to 2016.
For now, the EU’s watchdog continues to pursue antitrust enforcement in the tech sector, with Qualcomm remaining a key target in its efforts to curb anti-competitive behaviour.
Google secured a significant victory on Wednesday, overturning a €1.49 billion ($1.66 billion) fine imposed by the European Commission in 2019. The fine, levied over antitrust violations, accused Google of abusing its dominance in online search advertising by restricting websites from using advertising brokers other than its AdSense platform. These practices, deemed illegal by the Commission, were said to have spanned from 2006 to 2016.
The General Court of Luxembourg, while agreeing with most of the European Commission’s findings, annulled the hefty fine. The judges ruled that the Commission had not fully considered all factors, particularly the duration of the unfair contractual clauses, which played a critical role in overturning the penalty. Despite the annulment, the ruling upheld many of the Commission’s assessments, but the financial punishment did not hold.
The fine was one of three that have cost Google a combined total of €8.25 billion in antitrust penalties, triggered by complaints from rivals such as Microsoft. Google noted that it had already revised the contracts in question in 2016 before the Commission’s decision.
The legal victory for Google comes just a week after it lost a separate case involving a €2.42 billion fine for unfairly promoting its price comparison service. While the battle over its advertising practices may have seen a favourable outcome, the tech giant’s ongoing legal challenges in Europe reflect the broader scrutiny facing major digital platforms across the continent.
Facebook’s owner company, Meta, is bracing for a substantial fine from the European Union, according to sources familiar with the matter. The penalty stems from allegations that Meta is leveraging its dominance in social networking to stifle competition in the classified advertising sector. The company’s practice of linking its free Marketplace service with Facebook has raised concerns among the EU regulators, who view this strategy as an attempt to edge out rivals.
The decision is expected as soon as next month, and it could be one of the final significant moves overseen by the EU’s current competition chief, Margrethe Vestager, before her departure. The investigation into Meta’s business practices marks a continuation of the EU’s broader efforts to crack down on the monopolistic behaviour of tech giants.
Currently, neither Meta nor the EU regulators have commented on the looming decision. However, this case could signal a more stringent approach to maintaining a level playing field in the digital marketplace, where tech companies have long held considerable power. The ruling could have substantial financial and operational consequences for Meta, potentially setting the tone for future regulatory actions in the tech industry.
The Biden administration is proposing new rules that could raise the cost of shipping goods from Chinese e-commerce platforms like Shein and Temu to the US. The aim is to crack down on the ‘de minimis exception,’ which currently allows products under $800 to be shipped duty-free. Biden has pointed out a surge in shipments using this exception, jumping from 140 million annually a decade ago to over 1 billion, mostly from Chinese platforms.
The new rules would block duty-free shipments of tariffed goods and require e-commerce platforms to provide more detailed information, such as the 10-digit tariff code. Both Shein and Temu have defended their practices, emphasising their commitment to affordable products and compliance with import rules. However, US safety regulators are pushing for investigations into product safety on these platforms.
The proposal follows warnings from the US-China Economic and Security Committee, which argues that platforms like Shein are using loopholes to outcompete US companies. Biden has vowed to explore further actions to protect American workers and strengthen enforcement against illegal imports.
The chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Jessica Rosenworcel, has called for increased competition to SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet service. Starlink currently operates nearly two-thirds of all active satellites and is responsible for a significant portion of space-based internet traffic.
Rosenworcel highlighted that monopolies do not benefit the economy, emphasising the need to bring in more companies to develop satellite constellations and drive innovation in space. She stressed that competition in communications markets typically leads to lower prices and more innovation, and the space sector should not be an exception.
The FCC has been working to support new entrants in the space economy, offering guidance on licensing processes and promoting outreach efforts. Rosenworcel aims to encourage more players to enter the market and challenge Starlink’s dominant position.
In 2022, the FCC withdrew $885.5 million in rural broadband subsidies from Starlink, citing the service’s inability to meet basic program requirements. SpaceX had originally agreed to deliver high-speed internet to over 600,000 rural homes and businesses across 35 US states.
An Indian antitrust investigation has concluded that Amazon and Walmart’s Flipkart breached competition laws by favouring select sellers on their platforms. The probe, initiated by the Competition Commission of India (CCI), revealed that both companies created an ecosystem that prioritised certain sellers, making it harder for other retailers to compete.
Reports found that these preferred sellers were given an unfair advantage, appearing higher in search results and receiving additional services, leading to deep discounting practices. The findings highlighted that these practices harmed smaller retailers and stifled competition, especially in the mobile phone sector.
Both Amazon and Flipkart are expected to review the reports and submit objections before any fines are imposed. These companies have consistently denied any wrongdoing and argued that their operations comply with Indian regulations.
The investigation stemmed from complaints by traditional retailers and follows growing concerns about the dominance of e-commerce giants in India. Both Amazon and Flipkart remain major players in a market projected to be worth $160 billion by 2028.
In 2009, Google’s goal was to ‘crush’ rival ad networks, as revealed by a former executive in a point highlighted in the ongoing US Department of Justice antitrust trial against the tech giant. The remarks, made by David Rosenblatt, Google’s former president of display advertising, surfaced as part of the prosecution’s argument that Google has been trying to monopolise the online adtech market, dominating both publisher ad servers and advertiser ad networks.
The trial is gaining momentum and has introduced evidence of Google’s internal strategies since it acquired DoubleClick in 2008. Rosenblatt’s comments, referenced in court notes, underscored Google’s aim to control the digital advertising ecosystem. He compared the company’s adtech ambitions to those of major financial institutions, stating that Google wanted to achieve in display ads what it had already done with search ads.
Google has denied the allegations, asserting it faces strong competition from other major players like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta. The company argues that its advertising tools are common in the industry. However, the prosecution contends that Google’s integrated ad services give it an unfair advantage, particularly by making it difficult for publishers to switch platforms, a challenge Rosenblatt described as a ‘nightmare.’
Should the court rule against Google, prosecutors have called for the company to sell off its Google Ad Manager, including its publisher ad server and ad exchange, to restore competition in the digital advertising market.
The Dutch government announced on Tuesday that ASML will now require a licence to supply spare parts and software updates for chipmaking equipment previously sold to Chinese customers. This applies to equipment that has since been classified under new export restrictions.
The move follows the government’s decision last Friday to add two additional chipmaking tools to its national control list, aligning its policies with the United States. The restrictions aim to curb the export of advanced technology to China.
ASML, a major supplier of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, has previously expressed concerns over the potential impact of such restrictions on its business. However, the company must now comply with the new rules for sales to Chinese clients.
The Netherlands Foreign Ministry confirmed the updated regulations, stating that the licences will help control the flow of sensitive technology in line with international agreements.
